LAWS(P&H)-1988-1-56

RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On January 14, 1988
RAMESHWAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial and conviction of the appellants Rameshwar and Chander Bhan for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act was held to be illegal, by the lower appellate court, on the ground that their joint trial for the commission of different though similar offences, was illegal. The court, thereafter, remanded the case to the trial court to try the appellants separately. it is the legality of this order that is now sought to be questioned on the ground that keeping in view the harassment already suffered by the petitioners, on account of their prolonged trial, further prolongation of it would be contrary to the interests of justice.

(2.) THE case against the petitioners is that on February 27, 1984, they were found stealing electricity, inasmuch as they were running their tubewells by wrongfully taking electric power direct from the mains and not through by authorised meter. A case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 39 of the Electricity Act was consequently registered against them on that day. Criminal prosecution, in respect of these offences was launched against the petitioners on August 10, 1984 resulting eventually in their conviction thereunder and sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each. This order was then challenged in appeal which was filed on December 18, 1986. The impugned order of the lower appellate court remanding the case for fresh trial was eventually passed on September 14, 1987. It would thus be seen that the petitioners have been undergoing trial for a period of over three years. It will be recalled that the punishment imposed upon them was only a minor one and keeping this factor in view, coupled, of course, with the long drawn out trial that the petitioners have already faced, it would clearly not be in this interest to justice to subject the petitioners to any further strain and expense on this account. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the lower appellate court, remanding the case for fresh trial is hereby set aside. The order setting aside the conviction of the appellants is, however, maintained.