STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAGANLAL CHUNILAL BOGAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manganlal Chunilal Bogawat is carrying on business In Ahmednagar as a tailor. The town of Ahmednagar is served by the Ahmednagar Electric Supply Co. Ltd., by supplying electric energy for lighting purposes and for motive power for mechanical and other uses: The Ahmednagar Electric Supply Co. Ltd., has its head office to Bombay and has a local Manager stationed in Ahmednagar. The Company supplies electric energy to consumers for lighting purposes as well as for motive power for other uses. The accused Bogawat had obtained two separate connections in his shop with the service of the Company. One was a connection for lighting purposes and the other was for use as motive power and heating. On 8-1-1953, two employees of the Company, Pardeshi and Bhingardive went to the shop of Bogawat at about 7-15 p.m. and checked the two meters which were fixed one above the other, one for the lighting circuit and the other for the motive power circuit. They noticed, that all the lights in the shop were on. The meter for lighting service was not in motion and the main switch for lighting service was on the off position. They also noticed that the meter for the motive, power service was in motion and the main switch for that service was on and that the electric iron was not being used. It became apparent to the employees of the Company that the motive power circuit was being used for lighting purposes by means of some temporary connection. Panchas were accordingly seat for and a panchnama was made. Thereafter intimation was sent to the head office, at Bombay and having obtained the sanction of the head office a complaint was lodged before the police that Bogawat had committed an offence under Section 44(d), Indian Electricity Act and under Section 379, Indian Penal Code read with Section 39, Indian Electricity Act. The police investigated the complaint and submitted a charge-sheet against Bogawat in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Ahmednagar.

(2.) Before the learned Judicial Magistrate on behalf of the prosecution the Local Manager Mr. Gore, two checkers Pardeshi and Bhingardive who visited the shop of Bogawat on 8-1-1953, Naik and Kachardas the two panchas and two other witnesses were examined besides the investigating officers Mehendale and Honap. Alter discussion of some evidence the Judgment proceeds:-- The learned Magistrate accepted the evidence of Pardeshi and Bhingardiwe and of the Panch Naik who officiated at the time of the panchanama and held that the accused Bogawat had abstracted energy for lighting purposes through me motive power meter and he had used it improperly. The learned Magistrate, however, acquitted the accused because in his view Pardeshi and Bhingardiwe were not authorised to enter the shop of the accused Bogawat and 'inasmuch as their entry into the shop was illegal and unauthorised, the whole structure of the prosecution case must fall'. The learned Magistrate was of the view that Pardeshi and Bhingardiwe had not been given authority in writing by Gore, the Local Manager, to enter the shop of Bogawat, and that the authority which was produced in Court as given by Mistry, Superintendent of the Company, who had no power to give the authority under Section 20(1), Indian Electricity Act and that before entering the premises, Pardeshi and Bhingardiwe had not Informed the accused Bogawat of their intention to enter the premises and, therefore, there was a material defect in the procedure followed for checking up of the lighting system, and the entire proceeding of the two checkers must be regarded as illegal. The learned Magistrate observed:

(3.) Mr. Adik, who appears on behalf of the respondent Bogawat, has taken us through the evidence of Pardeshi, Bhingardiwe and the two Panchas Naik and Kachardas. Our attention has also been Invited to the panchanania. It appears that the Panch Kachardas Gundecha was persuaded to resile from the statement made by him in his examination-in-chief and also in the panchanania which bore his signature. The evidence of Pardeshi and Bhingardiwe, which we have summarised, appears to be consistent and there is no reason why that evidence should not be accepted, especially when the learned trial Magistrate, who saw those witnesses, has accepted their testimony. The learned Magistrate observed alter considering the evidence: