VENKATACHALAPATHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is the accused No.5 in C.C.No.20 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I. Salem and he seeks to quash the proceedings in the case insofar he is concerned.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts stated in the petition are as follows. The petitioner along with others is proceeded against for offences under Sections 39(1) read with 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act in C.C.No.20 of 1996. According to the complaint, on 11 -5 -1995, the officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board inspected the High Tension Service Connection in M/s.Annamalai Cotton Mills (P) Limited, Gajjanaickenpatty, Salem and it was found that two copper bit wires were inserted on the -R - and -D - phase inc oming and outgoing Jumpers of the metering set diverting the power supply direct to the Mill without going through the current transformer of the metering set by way of short circuit and thus. Illegally abstracted and consumed energy. The accused No.l is the Mill and accused Nos.2 and 3 are Managing Directors and accused Nos. 4 and 5 are Directors and accused Nos.6 and 7 are the Manager and Electrician of the accused No.l, Mill. According to the complaint, accused Nos.l to 7 committed the theft of electricity, punishable under Sections 39(1) read with 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act. The final report, including the statements of witnesses and the documents filed in support of the case, does not connect the petitioner with the crime. As per section 49 -A of the Indian Electricity Act, unless the allegations are made to the effect that the petitioner was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against and punished for the offence. The prosecution, in the present case, has not made such allegation against the petitioner and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

(3.) IT is apparent from the allegations in the First Information Report that the petitioner was not present during the inspection. The F.I.R. reads as follows. The service connection stands in the names of the Managing Director viz., accused No. 2. Mr .P. Sundaram and the Joint Managing Director viz., accused No.3, Mr. P. Viswanathan. In the final report, it has been stated that the petitioner herein is one of the Directors of the accused No.l -Mill. The facts stated earlier clearly show that as far an the petitioner in concerned, there is not even a whisper nor any shread of evidence nor anything to show that there was any act committed by the petitioner, from which, a reasonable inference can be drawn that he could also be vicariously liable.