B KULLAYYA REDDY Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER PRODDATUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is being tried for the offence under Section 39 of Indian Electricity Act and 304(A) of IPC in Spl. SC No.186 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah.

(2.) He filed Criminal MP No.722 of 2002 under Section 227 Cr.PC to discharge him of the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The reason pleaded by him was that under Section 50 of the Act, the cognizance of the offences under the Act can be taken only on a complaint submitted by the Electricity Board or Inspector of Electricity or any aggrieved person and not on the basis of a complaint submitted by a person who does not fit into those referred to in the section. The Trial Court rejected the petition through its order dated 30-10-2002. Hence this revision.

(3.) Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 50 of the Act is clear and unambiguous and it permits initiation of prosecution under the Act or Rules made thereunder, only at the instance of the Government, Electricity Board or Electrical Inspector and not at the instance of private individuals. It is his case that the expression "party aggrieved by the same" occurring under Section 50 of the Act has to be read in the context of what was referred to therein, but not in isolation. It is his case that the complaint was submitted by one Mr. Kamal Basha alleging that his son was electrocuted on account of the pilferage of electricity by the petitioner.