LexRAM CHANDER PRASAD SHARMA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
•
c
•
D
E
F
•
G
H
RAM CHANDER PRASAD SHARMA
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
February 8, 1966
[A. K. SARKAR AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ]
Indian Electricity Act (9 of 1910), ss. 39 and 50-Existence of arti-
ficial means for abstraction of e/ectriclty-Whm evidence of dishontlt
abstraction-Complaint to police on behalf of Company-If prosecutiort
at the Instance of person aggrieved.
The appellant's mill was supplied with electric energy by the Patna
Electricity Supply Company. The electric meter was tampered With by
breaking its seals, opening its stud and inserting a wire which prevented
Iba rotation of the disc, so that, the consumption of electricity waa DOI
registered. There was thus a perfected artificial means for abstraction of
electric energy. At the instance of the Chief Engineer of the Electricity
Supply Company, who had been specifically empowered to act on behalf
of the company, a report was madle by the Assistant Engineer against the
appellant to the police and the appellant was prosecuted for an offence
under s. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The trial Court acquitted
him but the High Court, on appeal, convicted him.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : (i) The appellant was guilty.
For a convicNon under s. 39, it must be established that there was a
perfected artificial means for abstraction of electrical ener¥Y and that the
dishonest abstraction was by the accused person. In the mstant case the·
tampering was so blatant and so effective that it could not have
been
done without the appellant's knowledge or connivance. (524 B-C]
lagannath Singh alias /ainath Singh and Soharl Lal v. B. S. Rama-
rwamy, (1966) 1 S.C.R. 885, explained.
·
(ii) Since the Electricity Supply Company was a body corporate, it
must act only through its officers, and therefore it would follow that the
law was set in motion hv the "person aggrieved" within the meaning of
s. 50 of the Act. (523 CJ
CRIMINAL .APPELATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 48
to 51 of 1963.
Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd January
1963 of the Patna High Court in Government Appeals Nos. I of
1960, 39 and 19 of 1959, and Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1959
respectively.
M/s. Nuruddin Ahmad and U. P. Singh, for the Appellants (Ir
Cr. As. Nos 48 to 50 of 1963, and Appellant No. 2 (In Cr. A
No. 51 of 1963) :
M/s. D. P. Singh and U. P. Singh, for Appellant No. I {It\
Cr. A. No. 51 of 1963) :
M/s. A. N. Sahay, N. K. Prasad Rukhaiyer and D. Goburdhan,
for Respondent No. I.
M/s. A. N. Sahay and S. P. Varma, for Respondent No. 2.
SIS
SUPllEME COURT REPORTS
[ 1966] 3 S.C.R.
The following judgment of the court was delivered by :
Mudholkar J.-By a common judgment delivered on January
23, 1963 the High Court at Patna decided four appeals preferred by
the State of Bihar and two criminal revision petitions, one on behalf
of the complainant and another on behalf of an accused person.
These appeals arose out of four prosecutions launched against
certain persons
running mills or factories which were supplied
with energy by the Patna Electricity Supply Company (hereafter
referred to as P. E. S. Co. for the sake of brevity). The offences
with which they were charged were under ss. 39 and 44 (c) of the
Indian Electricity Act, 19!0 (9 of 19!0) and r. 138 read with
r. 56 made under the Act. The trying magistrate acquitted all those
persons who are aprcllants before us in respect of each of these
offences, except Ram Chander Prasad, appellant in Crl. A .. 48
of 1963.
He was convicted of all the three offences and sentenced
variously. In appeal he was acquitted of the offence under s. 39
by the Additional s,,ssions Judge, Patna while his conviction and
sentences under the other two provisions were upheld. The State
thereupon preferred an appeal against his acquittal under s. 417,
Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court. The State
likewise preferred appeals against the acquittal of the accused
persons in the other three cases. All the appeals were heard to-
gether and were substantially allowed. The complainant
Ram
Chandar Parsad Sharma's petition was allowed and
that of an
accused person dismissed. The accused persons have, therefore,
preferred four appeals before us and though we will deal with them
in this judgment we will take them separately one after the other.
Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1963 :
According to the prosecution, on June II, 1958 the Assistant
Engineer (Mains)Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.