S. MUNIGANANDAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) C .C. 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 Animal 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 consumption 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 section of the Indian Electricity Act.

(3.) AS regards C.C. 331 of 1996 the complaint is with reference to the offence alleged to have been committed during the period of disconnection of the service connection on 19/5/1994 and the restoration of the same on 30/5/1994. The petitioner is one of the accused by name Muruganandam. His contention is that the petitioner had already retired from the firm on 9/12/1993 itself and this has been also brought to the notice of the Electricity Board and the petitioner therefore cannot be proceeded with for the alleged offence which is said to have taken place on 30/4/1994 and between 19.5.1994 and 30.5.1994. The petitioner has produced before this Court certificates from the Registrar of firms, letter from the Commercial Tax Officer, copy of the public notice given on retirement, the intimation sent to the Electricity Board, the Excise department and the Bank about the retirement of the petitioner and the acknowledgement cards received from them. A public notice has been given in Malai Murasu, which is published in the issue dated 25/4/1994. On 9/12/1993, the petitioner has informed the Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle about his retirement with effect from 9/12/1993 and also requesting the Superintending Engineer to transfer the security deposit which stands in the firms account in the name of K. Thavamani, Managing Partner, Sri Venkateswara Industries. The petitioner has on the same day addressed letters to the Superintending Engineer TNEB of the Thirumangalam office, the Manager of Indian Overseas Bank, T. Kallupatti, the Inspector of Factories, Southern Circle Madurai, the Commercial Tax Officer, Thirumangalam informing them all of his retirement. He has also produced the xerox copies of the acknowledgement for the receipt of the said letters by the concerned Departments. The reason for implicating the petition is said to be that he signed the agreement with TNEB in August 1988; that he has also signed the Sealing Register in 1988. The petitioner does not dispute having signed these documents in the year 1988. But his contention is mat he retired from the Partnership on 9/12/1993. He has informed the authorities concerned about his retirement. Merely because he has signed certain documents in the year 1988, it cannot be cited as a ground to proceed against the petitioner for an offence which is alleged to have been committed subsequent to his retirement from the partnership. S. 32 of the Partnership Act clearly sets out mat on the giving of a public notice by a partner of his retirement, the partner will cease to be liable for any act of the partnership subsequent to his retirement. The intention of the public notice is to put on notice persons about the factum of a particular person having retired from the partnership. A concern or an industry while running, among others will have dealings, transactions and correspondence with persons such as Inspector of Factories, Electricity Department, Municipality or Panchayat, Excise Department Income Tax Department and others. To those persons, the petitioner has given notices informing about his having retired from the partnership. In addition, he has also published a public notice informing of his retirement though it was done only in the month of April 1994. Therefore in such circumstances one has to see whether the mere fact that at the time when the firm applied for high tension power connection, the relevant documents were signed by the petitioner then the partner of the same, would make the petitioner liable for any offence committed by the firm after the retirement of the petitioner from the firm.