K NARAYANASAMY Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by A-l out of three accused, challenging the order of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai dated 29.12.2006 passed in Cr1. M.P. No. 2333 of 2006 in C.C. No. 7110 of 2005, dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner seeking for the relief of discharge for the reference under Sections 120-B and 120-B read with 466, 471 and 109 I.P.C.

(2.) The brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of this revision are hereunder:

(3.) Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly contended on the ground that the charges and allegations relating to the present case is connected with the earlier case in which the petitioner and other accused have been implicated for the alleged offence under Sections 39(1) and 44(1)(e) of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 I.P.C. It is further con- tended that the prosecution is not entitled to register a separate case for the alleged offence as stated above against the revision petitioner as the allegation is mainly relating to alleged substitution of original forensic report by a bogus report in respect of electricity theft case already registered and final report filed and pending on the file of the different Magistrate. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the present offences are to be construed only as a connected offence relating to the earlier case pending for the offence of electricity theft and as such, if any information is received by the investigating agency, the only remedy available for them is to seek for the re-lief of further investigation by invoking the provision under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In support of such contention, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Others, 2001 AIR(SC) 2637.