P YAMUNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has been arrayed as A1 out of 3 accused, has come forward with the above petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against him in CC.No.12279/2004 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, for the alleged offence under sections 39[1] and 44[1][c] of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 pending in CC.No.12279/2004 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service connection of the premises stands in the name of the petitioner and the premises was owned by the petitioner, but the same was let out on rent to tenants. Accused 2 and 3 are the tenants occupying the premises and the meter was installed only in the premises under which the companies of A2 and A3 were functioning. It is contended that even as per the admitted allegation of the prosecution, the petitioner has been implicated only on the ground that the service connection was standing in the name of the petitioner but the electricity was actually consumed by the tenants, viz., A2 and A3 and as, such, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the alleged offences in this case. Learned counsel would place reliance on the complaint as well the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., from the Tamilnadu Electricity Board Officials, viz., Mr.S.Ramasamy, Assistant Executive Engineer, Mr.Ezhil Johnson, Assistant Executive Engineer and Mrs.D.Supriya, Assistant Executive Engineer and the allegations contained in the complaint as well as the statements of the said witnesses clearly shows that the electricity consumption was used and enjoyed only by A2 and A3. It is further contended that even the electricity meter also was installed only in the premises under the occupation of A2 and A3. THErefore, it is contended that even if the allegations contained in the complaint and other materials available on record, viz., the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., from the Electricity Board Officials to be taken in its entirety as true, no offence is made out and as such, the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is liable to be quashed.

(3.) A perusal of the entire materials available on record discloses that the petitioner who has been arrayed as A1 out of 3 accused has been given the service connection of electricity supply in her name. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is the owner of the premises. The undisputed fact remains even as per the earliest document, viz., the complaint preferred by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, that the premises which was owned by the petitioner was under the occupation of two companies of A2 and A3, viz., a Paper Manufacturing company and a steel factory and only the service connection was given in the name of the petitioner herein. Apart from the earliest document, viz., the complaint, a perusal of the charge sheet filed also discloses that two companies were functioning in the premises and the disputed electricity meter was also fixed in the premises and the service connection stands in the name of the petitioner and as such, the owner of the service connection, the petitioner/A1 as well as the persons who were actually running the companies were held liable for the offence under sections 39[1] and 44[1][c] of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.