9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of orders passed by Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC. Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.: The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., arguing that it was a second revision petition against the order of framing of charges, which is barred by Section 397(3) Cr. P.C. The court referred to previous judgments, emphasizing the inherent power of the High Court to achieve substantial justice. 2. Interpretation of Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act: The court analyzed Section 39 of the Act, which deals with the theft of energy. It highlighted the requirement of establishing the presence of artificial means for abstraction of energy before raising a presumption of dishonest abstraction. The judgment emphasized that the offense is against a person who has dishonestly abstracted, consumed, or used electrical energy. 3. Liability of a registered consumer under the Act: The court discussed the civil and criminal liabilities imposed on a consumer under the Act, distinguishing between civil liability to pay charges for energy consumed and criminal liability under penal provisions. It noted that being a registered consumer does not automatically make one liable for prosecution under the Act. 4. Error in framing charges against the petitioner: The court found that the lower courts erred in holding the petitioner liable solely based on being a registered consumer, without establishing actual dishonest abstraction by the petitioner. It pointed out that the inspection report implicated another entity, M/s. Ravi Sun Printers, for dishonest abstraction, yet they were not charged. The judgment concluded that the charge against the petitioner was an abuse of process, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. 5. Decision and Discharge of the petitioner: Based on the analysis, the court allowed the petition, quashed the charge framed against the petitioner under Sections 39/44 of the Act read with Section 379 IPC, and discharged the petitioner. It also discharged the petitioner's bail bonds, emphasizing the need to correct the manifest illegality to secure the ends of justice. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the correct interpretation of legal provisions, the distinction between civil and criminal liabilities under the Act, and the necessity of ensuring justice by not overlooking procedural errors that lead to miscarriage of justice.
|
