TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD versus M/S RASIPURAM TEXTILE (P) LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 25-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 11 
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD 
A 
II. 
M/S RASIPURAM TEXTILE (P) LTD. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1962 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 25, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
·i-
ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910: 
ss. 39(1) and 44(1)(c) rlw s.49-A(1) - Theft of energy- c 
Prosecution of Company and its Directors - Conviction of 
" 
Directors by trial court -
Set aside by appellate court -
Revision petition of complainant dismissed by High Court """ 
HELD: It is only if an averment is made in the complaint that 
accused Director was in-charge and/or responsible for 
conduct of affairs o{ the Company when offence was 
D 
committed, and sufficient and cogent evidence is brought on 
record to prove the said a/legation, that proviso to s. 49-A 
would be attracted and burden would shift on the accused-
Director to establish that offence was committed without his 
E 
knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent 
commission of such offence - In the instant case, there being 
neither any averment made in the complaint nor any 
evidence brought on record by complainant to satisfy the 
requirement of s.49-A, the appellate court and the High Court 
F 
in revision petition rightly held that the Directors could not 
-''f· 
have been convicted - Order of acquittal not interfered with 
- Criminal Law - Burden of proof. 
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 
(2005) 8 SCC 89; K. Srikanth Singh Vs. North East G 
Securities Ltd. and Anr. (2007) 12 SCC 788; Saroj Kumar 
'r 
Poddar Vs. State(NCT of Delhi) (2007)3 SCC 693 and 
Average Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State, Govt. of N.C. T. & Ors. 
(2007) 5 sec 54, relied on. 
11 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
Case Law Reference 
(2005) 8 sec 89 
relied on 
para 17 
(2001) 12 sec 788 
relied on 
para 17 
(2001). 3 sec 693 
relied on 
para 17 
(2007) s ·sec 54 
relied on 
para 17 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1962 of 2008: 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 6.4.2004 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 691 of 
2003. 
R. Nedumaran and T. Harish Kumar for the Appellant. 
Jayant Muthraj, C.K. Sasi and Aribam Guneshwar Sharma 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
Leave granted. 
1. One Executive Engineer of the Tamil Nadu State 
Electricity Board made a surprise inspection of the premises 
F of first respondent -Rasipuram Textile Mills. Allegedly, theft of 
electrical energy was detected. 
2. A criminal prosecution was lodged not only against the 
company but also against its Managing Director and other 
G Directors purported to under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the 
Indian Electricity }\ct, 1910. 
· 
e 
3. Learned trial Judge, recorded a judgment of conviction 
--r 
against the accused. So far as the Directors of the Company 
H 
are concerned, the learned trial .. Judge convicted despite 
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD v. MIS 
13 
RASIPURAM TEXTILE (P) LTD. & ORS. 
noticing the provisions contained in Section 49A of the Indian 
A 
Electricity Act, 1910, observing: 
"From the above, it is clear that, all the persons 
responsible for the administration of a company are liable 
for the offence committed by the Company. If anybody 
8 
disowns the liability and claims it has happened without 
his knowledge or despite the sincere efforts the offence 
has been committed, then it is for the concerned accused 
to prove the same. On this basis, the Managing Director 
and the other Directors A2 to A 1 O were also included 
being the responsible persons of A! Mill. A 11 was ·c 
~ 
included as Electrical Supervisor and A 12 as Spinning 
Master and A 13 as Electrical Helper were included by 
P.W.8 Thiru Jayachandran in the final report". 
4. Indisputably, the Managing Director of the company-.. 
D 
R. Nainamalai as also another Director of the company R. 
Palanivel Goundar expired during pendency of the said 
proceedings. 
5. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, while 
E 
setting aside judgment of the trial Court, categorically, held as 
under: 
"13. That the. petitioner 2 to 8 only Directors of the 
Mill and the prosecution has not alleged that the petitioner 
is in charge of and was responsible to the accused· No.1 
F 
_, 
Mill for the conduct of the business of the Mill and the 
records of Investigation also did not show that the 
petitioner was or had been participating in.the day to day 
affairs of the Mill and the mere fact that the pe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.