(1) Some interesting questions of law arise for decision in this revision application which filed by two of the three accused, who wwere convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Clss, Court No. 5, Poona, in a prosecution for having committed certain offences under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and owns the electric supply limes in the city of Poona and its surroundingd. Petitioner No. 2 is the General Manager and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the material time. The third accused who was the Superintended of the Ganeshkhind Receiving Station and as such was in charge of that station, having been acquitted, is not a party to this revision application.

(2) There was a major accident in the Ganeshkhind Receiving Station of the Poona Electric Supply Company on the 15th of May 1961, at about 3 p.m. The prosecution case was that the oil circuit breaker of one of the two incomingfeeders burst and affected the supply of electricity, resulting in the cutting of the supply to the city of Poona and its surroundings. As a result of the burst, 9 persons including original accused No. 3, received injuries and 2 of them succumbed to their injuries. The complaint was filed by one Yeshwant Ganjanan Penkar, who was the Electrical Inspector for the city of Poona, on the 12th of June 1962, alleging, firstly, that the company was bound to inform him about the accident within 24 hours of its occurrence and that not having been done, the company and accused No. 2 who was its General Manager, had committed an offence under S. 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The other allegation was that in the inquiry which was made after the accident relating to the causes of the accident it had transpired that the accident was due to the fact that the apparatus of receiving electric supply was not maintained in accordance with the standards of Indian Standards Institution. It was also alleged that the company had not changed the oil since the 3rd of September 1958 and has thus acted in contravention of the Code of practice for maintenance of insulating oil set down by the Indian Standards Institution. On these and other allegations it was stated that accused Nos. 2 and 3 who were in charge of the works of the company were required to maintain the apparatus of receiving electric supply in accordance with the standards of the Indian Standards Institution as required by Rule 29 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, and they having failed to do so had committed an offence under Rule 29 read with R. 141 of the Indian Electricity Rules. The learned Magistrate acquitted accused No. 3 on all the counts. He acquitted accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offence under R. 29 read with R. 141 of the Indian Electricity Rules. He, however, convicted them for having committed offence under S. 33 read with S. 47 of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced both the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 170 each and directed that in the event of accused No. 2 not paying the fine, he should suffer S. I. for one month. As regards accused No. 1, i.e., the Company, he directed that the fine should be recovered from the property of the company. There was an appeal against this order of the learned Magistrate to the learned Sessions Judge, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, who heard the appeal, confirmed the convictions and the sentences imposed on the accused and dismissed the appeal. That is why the present revision application has been filed by the two accused against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3) It was not disputed that a written notice relating to the accident, as required by the Electricity Act, was not given on the 15th of May 1961. The defence of the accused was that although a written notice was not given within 24 hours of the accident, they had not committed any offence under S. 33 of the Indian Electricity Act, read with