RAGHUNATH RANADE Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The order in this case will also cover Criminal Reference No. 433 of 1933. The applicant, who was a dealer in electric appliances and has since abandoned that profession, was convicted by the City Magistrate, Nagpur, in a summary trial of offences Under Section 44(c) and Rule 106 framed Under Section 37, Indian Electricity Act, and fined Rs. 100 for the first offence and Rs. 30, for the second. On application in revision to the Sessions Judge the latter made a reference to this Court concerning the conviction Under Rule 106. The conviction Under Section 44(c) is in respect of fraudulently altering the index of the meter owned by the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd., and installed in the applicant's premises and that Under Rule 106 in respect of the seals of that meter being broken. The rule runs: Where, in contravention of Rule 29 any seal referred to in that rule is broken the consumer upon whose premises the seal was placed shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge made the reference as it appeared to him that Rule 106 is ultra vires of the Government of India's powers to make rules, and even if not ultra vires it offended against the fundamental principles of criminal law and should be interpreted not according to its letter but the spirit underlying it, in that an offence is created in respect of something done over which the person to be liable has no control and which creates a presumption which he is not entitled to rebut. The applicant has filed a revision against the conviction on both counts.

(3.) I have considered the evidence and it appears to me incredible that the higher officials of the company should have acted in the manner alleged. The box put up by the company was unfortunately furnished with a cheap lock obtainable in the local market for which the possession of a duplicate key could be obtained with the greatest case. Capital has been made of the fact that the company's officials made three attempts to inspect the meter in the month of March 1933 and in consequence of a report that the seals had again been broken (they had been broken on previous occasions) it is contended that the applicant would not be so foolish as to leave the high unit indicated on the meter for the officials to see on 10th March when he knew their coming was inevitable and would not be so foolish as to correct it after their inspection. This is a plausible argument, but it is equally plausible to suggest that it would be easier to bring these allegations against the company after subsequent inspection than to explain why the meter should be apparently recording normally with all the seals broken after having been enclosed in a locked box, a circumstance which would certainly be a prelude to further enquiries which the applicant wished to avoid.