S MURUGANANDAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the parties are the same in both the applications and identical question of law is raised in both these matters, these two applications were taken up together, heard and a common order is rendered hereunder.

(2.) CC 331 of 1996 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam is with reference to the complaint dated 1-5-1994 by Asst. Executive Engineer, TNEB against Thavamani Ammal Prabakar, Rajendran and Md. Ismail. The allegation is that when a raid party of TNEB checked the High Tension Service Connection No. 01001 installed in Venkateswara Industries situate at Madurai Rajapalayam Road, it was found that the factory was running and all the lights were burning. But the meter was not running. On checking it was found that with a view to avoid the recording of the cosumption on the meter a line had been taken from the transformer by passing the meter and energy was drawn directly from the transformer and this has been done with a view to commit theft of electricity and that the accused have committed theft of electricity in a sum of Rs. 1,49,58,239/- and, therefore, they are liable to be punished under the relevant sections of the Indian Electri-city Act.

(3.) The gist of the complaint in C.C. No. 332 is as follows :- The complaint in CC No. 332 is Assistant Executive Engineer, TNEB, Kallipatti, Thavamani, Prabakar Soundararajan, Muthu-kumaraswamy Mariyapalraj are shown as the accused. The allegation is that on 4-6-1994 the Executive Engineer Pasumalai inspected the Sri Venkateswara Industries of which the accused 2 to 4 are partners and during the inspection the sealing on the top of the transformer was found cut and opening the mouth and interchanging the connection the current going to the meter was restrained and it blocked the correct reading of the meter. On 3-5-1994 the electric connection was given to the Industry after initiating police action on 1-4-1994 for the earlier offence committed on 30-4-1994. As the accused failed to pay the electricity charges for April 1994 the connection was disconnected on 19-5-1994. But the accused obtained an order of injunction from civil Court whereupon the connection was again restored on 30-5-1994 and it is between this period when there was no current the accused had committed this offence and hence the accused are liable to be proceeded against under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. Thus CC 331 relates to the offence said to have been committed on 30-4-1994.