EMPEROR Vs. RAGHUNATH RAMCHANDRA KARLEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are appeals by the Government of Bombay in two connected cases in which one Raghunath Ramchandra Karlekar, licensee and proprietor of an electric supply company at Ilkal in the Bijapur District, was prosecuted for an alleged breach of Rule 48 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1937, and was acquitted by the Magistrate.

(2.) THERE is no dispute about the facts of the case. In the months of February and March, 1938, the accused carried out certain small installation works on the premises of some half a dozen inhabitants of Ilkal. The installation works consisted of putting in in each case one light point with switches and cut-outs. Three of these works were made the subject of one case and three of the other. The work was admittedly done at the expense of the supply company, and the light points, switches etc. remained the property of the company. Rule 48, which is alleged to have been infringed, is as follows:- Precautions to be adopted by consumers and owners, electrical contractors and electrical workmen.--(1) No electrical installation work, including additions, alterations, repairs, and adjustments to existing installations, except such replacement of lamps, fans, fuses, switches and other component parts of the installation as in no way alters its capacity or character, shall be carried out upon the premises or on behalf of any consumer or owner for the purposes of the supply of energy to such consumer or owner, except by an electrical contractor licensed by the provincial Government in this behalf and under the direct supervision of a person holding a certificate of competency issued by the provincial Government: Provided that, the provincial Government may by notification in the Official Gazette exempt on such conditions as it may impose any such description of work either generally or in the case of any specified class of consumers or owners from so much of this sub-rule as requires such work to be carried out by an electrical contractor licensed by the provincial Government in this behalf: Provided further that this rule shall not apply to any work carried out by or on behalf of the Government of India unless the Government of India so direct. (2) This rule shall come into force in any province or part thereof on such date as the provincial Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint.

(3.) THEREFORE, the old Rule 40A was superseded prima facie when the new rules were made applicable on March 27, 1937. As I have said, the corresponding new Rule 48 did not come into force until March 22, 1938, and, according to the contention of the learned advocate for the accused, in February and the first part of March, 1938, when he carried out these installation works, there was no rule corresponding to the present Rule 48 in force.