LAWS(MAD)-1991-11-22

SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE TAMIL NADU

Decided On November 08, 1991
SUBRAMANIAM Appellant
V/S
STATE REP. BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERODE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second accused in C.C. No. 461 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erode is the petitioner. The accused 1 and 2 were charged for offences punishable under Ss.39(1) and 44 (1) (c) of the Indian Electricity Act as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 1980 read with S. 39 and S. 44(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

(2.) The first accused is the Proprietor of Astalakshmi Ice Factory at door No. 13-A, Kalaimagal Kalvi Nilayam Road, Erode. The second accused is the lessee of the said factory and as per N. S.C. No. 269 electricity was supplied to the said ice factory and both the accused had tampered with the meter and consumed 30,412 Units of electricity for the Ice factory and caused loss of Rs. 60,690/- to the Government. A case was registered by the Erode Town Police under the abovesaid provisions of the Act.

(3.) The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and marked Exs. P.1 to P.20 and also marked M. Os. 1 to 5. The accused have not examined any defence witness nor marked any exhibits or material objects. On a consideration or the oral and documentary evidence the learned trial Magistrate found the first accused not guilty of the offences and acquitted him, but found the second accused guilty for tampering with the meter and committing theft of electricity, convicted him under Ss. 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act (as amended) and sentenced him under S.39(1) of the said Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and under S. 44 (1)(c) of the said Act to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default under each of the two Sections to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The second accused filed appeal in C.A. No. 68/87 before the Sessions Court, Periyar District at Erode and the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The second accused has filed this revision against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, challenging the legality of the same.