SENTHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused 3 and 4 in SC. No. 89/2011 of Additional Sessions Court-II, Palakkad are the revision petitioners herein.

(2.) On the basis of a complaint given by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kanjikode earlier on detection of alleged theft of electricity by the accused in a case, a crime was registered as Crime No. 37/2005 of Walayar police station on 19.1.2005 against the accused persons including the present revision petitioners alleging the offences punishable under Sections 135, 138 and 139 of the Indian Electricity Act and after investigation, final report was filed on 31.10.2005 and it was committed to the Sessions Court as per order in C.P. No. 89/2005 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad and the case was taken on file as SC. No. 195/2007 by the Sessions Court and it was made over to the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Palakkad for disposal. Thereafter on getting notice in the proceedings, the first accused company filed Crl. M.C. No. 268/2008 before this Court for quashing the proceedings and this Court by order dated 11.2.2008 quashed the proceedings on the ground that police has no power to investigate and file final report and cognizance can be taken only on the basis of a complaint filed by the authorized officer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, but liberty was given to the Board to file a fresh complaint in respect of this incident. Accordingly, a private complaint was filed by the Electricity Board through its authorised officer on 29.1.2011 before the special court and the special court had taken cognizance of the case as SC. No. 89/2011 and notice was issued to the accused persons including the revision petitioners and after appearance of the revision petitioners and after splitting the case as against others as service could not be completed against them, it was posted for hearing of the parties and after hearing the parties, the learned special judge found that the complaint is maintainable and it is not barred by limitation and decided to frame charge against the revision petitioners. This order is being challenged by the revision petitioners, who are accused 3 and 4 before the court below.

(3.) Heard the counsel for the revision petitioners and the Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board and the Public Prosecutor.