LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus ADIMURTHY ALIAS B. MOORTHY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r -+ 249 STATE OF KARNATAKA v. ADIMURTHY ALIAS B. MOORTHY May 11, 1983 [A. P. SEN AND E. s. VENKATA!lAMIAH, JJ.] Indian Electricity Act, 1910-Section 50-Scope of. Word~' and phrases-" At the instance of"-Meaning of On a routine inspection a Supervisor of the State Electricity Board· follnd that by tampering with the electric connectio~. the respondent was using switches, lights and.fans inside the house without the meter recording any consumption. On the dirCction of the Assistant Engineer lie lodged a report again.st the respondent with the police alleging theft of electricity by him. The trying Magistrate acquitted ·the respondent of the offence with which he was charged on the ground that section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 did not authorise the Supervisor to lodge a complaint. The High Court upheld thr- Magistrate's order holding that the notification issued by the Electricity Board authorizing,.among others, supervisors to institute prosecu· tions in terms of section 50 not having been published in the official Gazette, the Court could not take judicial notice of it and that the prosecution had failed to establish that the supervisor was _competent to lodge the complaint. Allowing the appeal, HELD : The order of acquittal recorded by the Magistrate as affirmed by the High Court proceeds on a constru~tiQn of section 50 of the Act which ' is wholly unwarranted and has resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice. Section 50 of the Act nowhere requires that the authorisation· should be by a notification published in the official Gazette. The prosecution had been launched •at the instance of' the Electricity Board within the meaning of section 50 of the Act. The meaning of the phrase 'at the instance of' does not imply the same degree of obligaJion to obey as does 'command'; That is also the.legal ~ense in which the phrase has been understood in se~tion 50 of the Act. (2S2 B-C-D] Ram Chander Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar & Anr, [1966) 3 S.C.R. 517 referred to. Vishwanath v. Emperor AIR 1936 All. 742; State (Dehli Administration) v. /Jharm Pal 1980 Cr!. L.J. 1394; State of karnataka v. Abdul Nab/ 1975 Cd. L.J. -746 ap~roved. A B c D E F G H A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTs ll 9SJJ 3 S.C.R. The High Court was misled by the use of the wotd 'notili.cation' con-. tained in the manual. The notification is· a general .order issued by the Board · in terms of section 50 authorising certain of its officials to institute prosecutions or make complaints to the police for instituting prosecutions for offences under certain sections of.the Act:: Ii was an intern~l matter for the Electricity Board. It is quite ch~ar upon the terms of section 50 that the Supervisor was authorised to lodge a complaint with the police: The Board, being a public. authority, it w.as sufficient for the prosecution to have placed on record a copy of the manual containillg tlie relevant notifications: Thai was sufficient proof of the authorisation requisite under section 50 of the Ac~. (254 F, 255 A·C:J Even if the requiren1ent of section 50 was that the authorisation should have been by a notification published in the official Gazette that would have hardly made a difference. [2S5 C-D] · CRIMINAL APPELLATE' JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 1983 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated lhe D 15th December, 1980 of the Karnataka High Court in Cr!. A. No. 590 of 1979. E F G H M. Veerappa·for tho Appellant; Vimal B'obde A.C, and P.R. Ramasish for the Respondent. The Judgment of'the Cour~ was delivered· by SEN, J. This appeal by special· leave is directed a1(ainst a judgment or'the Karnataka High Court dated December 15, 1980 affirming· the order of acquittal passed by the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate First Clas>, Krishnarajanagar dated July 10, 1979 acquitt- ing the respondent of an offence punishable under· ss. 39 and 44 · of the Indian Electricity Act; 1910 read· with s. 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860:' The prosecution case in ·brief was as follows., On August 25, 1976'at about 12 noon P.W. 1 Syed Ameer, Supervisor, Karnataka Electrfoity. Board, went to the house of the respondent on a routine inspection to check the electric meter installed there. He' found the meter board at the entrance and though the meter was not recording consumption· of electriC engrgy, the lights and fans were on. It appeared. thilt the respondent had tampe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.