BAROT VITTHALBHAI DAMODARDAS Vs. NATWARBHAI UMEDBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner is the landlord of a shop No. 61 of Laxmi Shopping Centre, Modasa. The electricity connection vide No. 24501/05367/j was granted by the Electricity Company to the said landlord. The petitioner has rented the shop to one Patel Pankajkumar Bhikhabhai and he is in occupation of the shop since 18. 1. 2006 and is running the business in the name of Maa Ambe Wooden Works. It appears that as per the Electricity Company - original complainant, on 17. 4. 2006, the inspection was made of the electricity connection and it was found that there was some alleged irregularities in the service line wire and as per the Electricity Company, it could be termed as theft falling under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" for short ). Therefore, the complaint was filed vide C. R. No. II-845/2006 of GEB Police Station, Sabarmati. In the said complaint, the name of the accused is shown as of the petitioner as well as the tenant Patel Pankajkumar Bhikhabhai and it is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 - Officer of the complainant Electricity Company and Mr. Raval, learned APP for the State.

(3.) IT appears that it is an admitted position that at the time when the inspection took place the shop in question - premises was in the occupation of the tenant Patel Pankajkumar Bhikhabhai. The said aspect is also recorded in the complaint by the complainant and the petitioner was not at all in actual occupation or using the shop or the electricity supply. When there is any allegation for fastening of criminal liability, it would be qua the person, who has committed offence and it cannot be extended to the owner of the property, unless there is any specific accusation that the owner is aware about it and he has played role in alleged offence for use of the electricity by the tenant by doing alleged theft. The principles of fastening criminal liability is different than that of civil liability in case of an ownership of the property or the use of the electricity. The language of Section 135 of the Act even if considered as it is, it refers to 'whoever' and the same would mean 'a person, who is involved in the commission of offence'. In a case where the property is owned by 'a' and is given on rental basis on any other agreement or contract known to law to 'b' and when 'b' is in occupation and using the electricity supply, any offence, if detected, such principles of criminal liability may be qua 'b' and it cannot be extended against 'a' in mere capacity as the owner of the property. If the criminal liability is extended to the owner of the property when admittedly the property is in occupation of the person other than the owner in whatsoever capacity it may be, it would be not only result into re-writing the principles of criminal liability in absence of any mens rea and other necessary ingredients for fastening criminal liability, but it would also result into miscarriage of justice on the face of it. The law never intends to punish the person, who is not guilty or the person, who cannot be said as guilty on the face of the accusation. If such is permitted, it would, on the face of it, also abuse the process of law.