RAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third accused in C.C.No.233 of 1987 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, is the petitioner. He along with eight others were arrayed as accused in the said calendar case, on a prosecution initiated by the State, on the complaint of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for offences under Secs.39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act and Secs.120-B, 484 and 473, I.P.C., read with Sec.109, I.P.C.

(2.) IN this petition under Sec.482, Cr.P.C., the prayer of the petitioner is to direct the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, to exclude the petitioner from representing the first accused. Messrs. Victory INdustries, in the said calendar case, in the interests of justice. The facts which led to this prosecution need narration.

(3.) THE trial Magistrate held that the petitioner and his brother, the fourth accused had not placed any material to indicate that the first accused Messrs. Victory Industries, was the sole proprietory concern. On the contrary, the evidence disclosed that the third accused was also helping his father, the second accused. Further, the Magistrate was of opinion, that when the proprietor and the fourth accused, were admittedly the legal heirs of the deceased second accused, they cannot say that they had no share in the proprietory concern. Since the first accused has been shown as the principal accused necessarily some one must be shown as a representative of the first accused and it was permissible under Sec.305(6), Cr.P.C., to decide this issue and therefore, there was nothing wrong in including the petitioner as the representative of the first accused, Messrs. Victory Industries. THE petition filed by the respondent was thus allowed.