RAJESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed to challenge the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ahmednagar passed on Exhibit 7 in R.T.C. No.46/2000 and also to challenge the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmednagar delivered in Criminal Revision No.261/2012. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) The respondent, electricity company, has given report to police on the basis of inspection made by flying squad of the company, that the petitioner, the person managing the affairs of a factory, had committed the offence of theft of electricity. They had noticed tampering of the connection, tampering of C.T. and P.T. boxes as the seals were found to be removed. There was transformer installed for supply of electricity to this factory. The supply was passed through two C.T. & P.T. boxes. The C.T. & P.T. boxes are installed to reduce the voltage of the electricity so that the meter can properly read the consumption of electricity. It is the case of the respondent that if there is tampering with the C.T. & P.T. boxes supply can be directly taken before entering the supply in the reading meter and the meter can also be restricted to alter the actual supply of electricity. The electricity company perused the record to find out theft of electricity and it noticed that from November 1996 to November 1999 there was theft of 16,72,019 units and the value of this consumption was around Rs.55,17,663/-. By adding 25% of surcharge the demand of Rs.68,97,078/- was made against present petitioner and the crime was registered on the basis of FIR given by the Electricity Company. The case was filed for the offences punishable under sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act 1910.

(3.) Before the Judicial Magistrate, application for discharge was filed by the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that provision of section 379 of Indian Penal Code cannot be used as already there are the provisions of sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act. As there was no discharge for offence punishable under sections 39 and 44, aforesaid revision was filed by the present petitioner. The Sessions Court has dismissed the revision.