EMPEROR Vs. GORDHANDAS NATHALAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals presented by the Government of Bombay against acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad of the two accused who had been convicted by the trial Court of an offence under Section 44 (b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that accused No.1 is a registered consumer of electricity, and accused No.2 is an electrical wiring contractor. Accused No.1 owns a house in Ahmedabad, which is supplied, with electric current by the Ahmedabad Electricity Company, which is a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act. Accused No.1 had erected a mandap in his compound in connection with a marriage ceremony, and electric current had been supplied to that mandap with the consent of the licensee from March 9 to 11, 1940, but on March 12 the supply to the mandap had been disconnected. On the 14th some of the lights in the mandap were connected up with the installation in accused No.1's house, and it is suggested that that connection constituted an offence under Section 44(b) of the Indian Electricity Act. That Sub-section makes it an offence, if any person lays, or causes to be laid, or connects up any works for the purpose of communicating with any other works belonging to a licensee, without such licensee's consent. "Wciks" are defined in Section 2(n) as including electric supply-lines and any buildings, machinery or apparatus required to supply energy and to carry into effect the objects of a license granted under Part II.

(3.) THERE is, 1 think, a considerable amount of doubt as to whether accused No.2 is guilty. He is an electrical contractor of standing, and is perfectly well aware of the requirements under the Indian Electricity Act. It would appear that accused No.1 asked him to see that six lights in the mandap were not disconnected, and he says that he asked the company not to disconnect them, but as the evidence is that the company did disconnect them, and they were subsequently reconnected, it is necessary to show that accused No.2 as the contractor was responsible for the reconnecting, and, in my view, the evidence does not show that.