A R SARAVANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 12 of 2001 charged for the offences under Sections 39(1), 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act and 484, IPC r/w Section 34, IPC has preferred this revision against the order of dismissal passed in his petition under Section 239 of Cr. P.C. for discharge by the trial Court.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that originally this petitioner and first Accused were partners under a partnership deed dated 8-11-1999, which was reconstituted on 1-4-1985. As per the reconstituted partnership deed, the 1st Accused is the Managing Partner, who has been looking after the business of Sundaram Theatre at Madurai. The theatre was leased out to the 3rd Accused on 1-6-1997. However, the "C" form licence of the cinema theatre stands in the name of the 1st and 2nd Accused. On 8-11-1999, officials of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai inspected the service connection Nos. 50 and 51 installed in the theatre where they found that the meters were allegedly tampered and detected the commission of energy theft. Thereafter, a case was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the offences stated above.

(3.) Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's name did not find place in FIR but he was falsely implicated later at the time of filing charge sheet; that the petitioner has nothing to do with the running of the theatre. In support of his arguments, the learned Senior counsel has brought to the notice of this Court the below mentioned documents.