RAMPALSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ostensibly, challenge is to the charge framed as per impugned order against the accused/petitioner under Section 379, IPC. Shri Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for him, has, however, given a new twist to the case and has contended seriously that the institution of the prosecution was itself void and, therefore, there was no scope for trial Court to frame any charge.

(2.) To a certain extent, Shri Bhargava is right because the prosecution concerns theft of electricity and yet the special provision of Section 39 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for short, the 'Act', has apparently been overlooked in passing the impugned order. It is conceded very fairly and rightly by Shri Khot that the trial Court should have added also Section 39 of the Act to the charge framed under Section 379, IPC, to make the charge clearly understandable to the accused/petitioner. Apparently, Section 39 is explanatory of Section 379, IPC when that is applied to theft of electrical energy. However, what I find from records is that in drawing up the charge in the statutory form, care was taken by the trial Court to make the position clear that the accused was required to stand trial for the charge under Section 379, IPC read with Section 39, Indian Electricity Act.

(3.) However, the serious contention which Shri Bhargava has raised, merits serious consideration and discussion. Facts are not disputed that the prosecution report was lodged by K. K. Jain, Junior Engineer, M. P. Electricity Board (for short, MPEB), Jigni, District Morena. Prosecution's case was that the accused/petitioner was operating a pumping machine with the help of electrical energy to irrigate his field and he was drawing electrical energy from main line without registering himself as a consumer. The case of the prosecution was that theft was clear, naked and without any cover whatsoever because no semblance of any authority to use electrical energy could be pleaded in any manner. In the F.I.R., it was stated that as a result of the device used by the accused/petitioner, distribution centre of M.P.E.B., at Jigni, was suffering heavy loss inasmuch as a 10 Horse Power electric motor was being used for operating the pump and for the electrical energy consumed no payment was made. Shri Bhargava has submitted that the Junior Engineer could not have instituted the prosecution inasmuch as Section 50 denies him that competence. Counsel has also cited two decisions of this Court in support of his contention.