I.H. KHAN Vs. V.M. ARATHOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule was obtained by the petitioner against the order of the learned: Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, whereby his complaint against the Opposite Parties under Section 426/34 of the Indian Penal Code was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner took lease of a piece of land from Opposite Party No. 1 and on that land he erected a structure which was used by him as a motor -repairing garage. The petitioner asked for a separate meter for the electric connection to his garage and to that end he is stated to have paid a certain sum of money to Opposite Party No. 1. A separate meter, however, was not installed but the petitioner was permitted to have electric current for his garage from the meter of Opposite Party No. 1, Subsequently, as a result of a dispute between the parties, Opposite Party No. 1 switched off the electric current to the petitioner's installation in the garage and it is this denial of the current that was the subject -matter of the complaint that was made to the Chief Presidency Magistrate.

(2.) THE learned Chief Presidency Magistrate sent the complaint to the police for enquiry and report and on receipt of the report passed the following order: It appears that the electric supply line has been disconnected. Mere disconnection of the electric supply without any change in the 'corpus' of the property (of which there is no dependable indication) does not constitute mischief. The complaint be dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Roy appearing in support of the rule contended that electric current that was being supplied to his client's installation is property in the sense in which the term has been used in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, that the stoppage of the current effected a change in the property which diminished its value or utility in the sense that the petitioner was thereby deprived of the illumination in his garage that he was so long getting. In support of this contention Mr. Roy referred to an un -reported Division Bench decision of this Court in Joykrishna Maity v. Dakhinaranjan Khasnobis, Criminal Revn. No. 442 of 1963, D/ - 11.5.1966. There also, according to Mr. Roy, the landlord had cut off electric current from the premises of his tenant and it was found that the act of the landlord would constitute an offence of mischief punishable under Section 426, I.P.C.

(3.) IN deciding that case the Court is found to have taken note of a previous unreported decision of this Court in Samir Kumar Ganguly v. Joynarain Agarwalla, Criminal Revn. No. 1441 of 1962 (Cal.) wherein it was held that disconnecting the., electric supply does not amount to destruction of property and that it does not also 1 amount to bringing about such a change as destroys or diminishes its utility or value; for, as soon as connection in restored, the electric supply will be resumed. The facts of that case were distinguished from the facts of the other case and it was held that in the facts of the case under decision, the earlier unreported Division Bench decision would not apply.