SURESH RAMANLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question with regard to the interpretation of see. 50 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 (hereinafter referred to the Act) arises in this criminal revision application which is preferred by the original first informant at whose instance the prosecution was launched against opponents Nos. 2 and 3 that is original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under sec. 39 and 44 of the Act read with sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) A few facts necessary to decide the point which arises in this revision application may be briefly stated as follows :

(3.) It was the defence of accused No. I that she had no knowledge about any theft of electrical energy being done that she had merely employed services of accused No. 2 for the purpose of effecting repairs as the connection was out of order and after the repairs were effected the connection came in order and she started receiving the electrical energy needed for her household purposes. It was defence of accused No. 2 that he had nothing to do with the alleged setting of the devices or carrying out of wiring work or alteration. It was also the contention that the prosecution not having been launched in accordance with the provisions of law no order of conviction could be passed against the accused.