ANBALAZHAGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who have been arrayed as A1 and A-3 and are facing trial for the alleged offence under Sections 39(1), 44(1)(c) of the Electricity Act, 1980 on the allegation of theft of energy, have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.265 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sankari.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not pressing this petition in respect of the first petitioner/A-1 and also made an endorsement to that effect as such this petition is liable to be dismissed as not pressed in respect of the first petitioner/A-1.

(3.) AN unreported judgment in Crl.R.C.No.691 of 2003 dated 06.04.2004 (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Namakkal vs. Rasipuram Textiles (P) Limited and 11 others). 4. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Additional Advocate General for the second respondent, contended that the question raised by the petitioner is purely of fact and it is for the petitioner to establish that question, i.e. the petitioner is no way connected with the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm, viz., Sri Krishna Alloys Company at the time of trial. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the third accused, who is the second petitioner herein, is also one of the partners of the firm and as such he is liable to be prosecuted and it is for him to establish his case at the time of full-fledged trial, as stated above, and he is not entitled to seek the relief of quashing the proceedings. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that as far as the Partnership act is concerned, every Director is deemed to be the working partner and as such the question of making specific allegation at this stage not at all arises. 5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.