Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
G.N.Prasad, J.
H.Krishna Murthy
Versus
Sohrai Lal
Decided On : APRIL 25, 1963
ELECTRICITY ACT - TAMPERING WITH METER - ARTIFICIAL MEANS FOR DISHONEST ABSTRACTION - PRESUMPTION OF DISHONEST ABSTRACTION - BURDEN OF PROOF - INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 - SECTIONS 39, 44 - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 201.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a flour mill owner, was found to have tampered with the seal and nut of the electricity meter installed at his premises. The prosecution alleged that this constituted an artificial means for dishonest abstraction of electrical energy under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The respondent denied the charges and claimed that the tampering was done by someone else.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tampering with the meter, specifically the loosening of the top nut and exposure of the stud hole, constituted the creation of an artificial means for dishonest abstraction of electrical energy. The court relied on the presumption under Section 39 of the Act, which states that the existence of such artificial means is prima facie evidence of dishonest abstraction. The court also held that the respondent, as the consumer in whose custody or control the tampered meter was, was responsible for the creation of this artificial means and failed to discharge the onus of proving otherwise.
Issues: 1. Whether the tampering with the electricity meter constituted an artificial means for dishonest abstraction of electrical energy under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910? 2. Whether the respondent was responsible for the tampering and creation of the artificial means? 3. Whether the prosecution had to prove that the meter was prevented from duly registering the consumption of electrical energy?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the tampering with the meter, specifically the loosening of the top nut and exposure of the stud hole, constituted the creation of an artificial means for dishonest abstraction of electrical energy. The court reasoned that this tampering provided unauthorized access to the meter's mechanism, allowing for manipulation of the disc's rotation and potential dishonest abstraction of energy. 2. The court held that the respondent, as the consumer in whose custody or control the tampered meter was, was responsible for the creation of this artificial means. The court noted that the respondent failed to provide any evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 39 of the Act, which places the burden of proof on the accused to show that the artificial means was not for the purpose of dishonest abstraction. 3. The court held that the prosecution was not required to prove that the meter was prevented from duly registering the consumption of electrical energy. The court relied on the presumption under Section 39 of the Act, which states that the existence of an artificial means for dishonest abstraction is prima facie evidence of dishonest abstraction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the respondent's acquittal under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The court convicted the respondent under Section 39 of the Act read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to six months of rigorous imprisonment. The court also convicted the respondent under Section 44 of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- with two months of rigorous imprisonment in default. Additionally, the court convicted the respondent under Section 201 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to four months of rigorous imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed under Section 39 of the Electricity Act.
1. The respondent is the owner of a flour mill in Mahalla Kaliasthan at Dinapur. The mill is fitted with a ten horse-power motor and the respondent is its recorded consumer of the Patna Electric Supply Company Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as the PESCO) under account No. 12438. The meter provided in the installation of the respondent was a three-phase meter. It was tested by K. L. Bhattacharji (P. W. 3), an assistant meter tester of the PESCO, on the 7th January, 1952,, and supplied to the respondent on the 8th January, 1952, on which date the respondent had entered into an agreement (Ext. 1), with the PESCO agreeing to pay for the electrical energy supplied to his mill by the PESCO on certain terms. At the time of supplying the meter to the respondent, it had been properly sealed with round lead seals and the nuts on the studs were fully tightened up. Subsequently, on the 16th April, 1956, the round lead seals were replaced by a special type of seals known as the meter door seals. The nuts were again fully tightened up and in accordance with the usual practicq, the seals were put on the top studs.
2. The prosecution case is that in the normal process I of transmission, transformation and distribution pf electrical energy, there used to be a loss of energy in the PESCO to the extent of about the percent., but in 1958 it was noticed by the Chief engineers of the PESCO that the losses were amounting up to 20 to 25 per cent. The abnormal percentage of loss led the Chief Engineer to suspect that electrical energy was being stolen in some of the industrial installations. Accordingly, he deputed his subordinates to check up the meters and seals of the industrial installations.
3. The prosecution case further is that on the 1st July, 1958, the Chief Engineer (P. W. 1) along with S. Chatterjee (P. W. 2) and another officer pf the PESCO named Srinivasan visited the respondents mill and inspected its installation in the presence of the respondent. As a result of their inspection, P. Ws. 1 and 2 found that one of the;seals of the meter was in broken condition and the top nut towards the left side of the meter was lopse and the top nut was screwed up and raised with the result that the corresponding stud hole had been exposed. On that occasion the meter reading was 41596. A formal report (Ext. 5) to this effect was drawn up by P. W. 2 on the same ay. On the 10th July, 1958, Chatterjee (P. W. 2) and H. K. Sen (P. W. 6) went to the respondents premises twice; once at 11-20 a. m. and agjain at 12-30 p. m., but on both these occasions the respondent was absent and the box in which the meter was kept was locked. P. W. 2 and 6 were, therefore, unable to inspect the meter and tally were only able to take the index reading which was found to be 41751. A report (Ext. 6) to his effect was submitted by P. W. 2 to the Chief (Engineer (P. W. 1). On the 12th July, 1958, the Chief Engineer filed a complaint against the respondent in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, and the respondent was summoned to . take his trial.
4. On the 15th July 1958, the Assistant Electric Inspector (P. W. 4) of the Government of Bihar went to the respondents mill along with Chatterjee (P. W. 2) for the purpose of inspecting the meter. They met the respondent, but the latter Irefused to allow them to inspect the meter. On the 2nd August, 1958, a prayer made by the Chief [Engineer in Court to seize the meter and to prcjduce it in Court was refused at the opposition I of the respondent. On the 30th October, 1.958, Supervisor (P. W. 10J of the PESCO wetit to check the respondents meter and found rustlings on the seal and the sealing wire and he made a report (Ext. 16/3) to this effect. Then on the 4th November, 1958, an order was passed for the seizure of the meter and its production in Court. In petulance of this order, an Honorary Magistrate I (P. W. 8) seized the meter on the 27th November, 1958, in presence of the respondent and made it over to Assi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
