The Court interpreted the phrase "unable to entertain it" in the proviso to S. 470(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to mean that the Court was unable to take cognizance of the complaint due to a technical defect.

( 1 ) IN this revisional application the four petitioners pray for quashing the proceeding of Case No. C/337 of 1975 pending against them in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrte, 11th Court, Calcuta, under S. 42 (b) read with S. 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the instant revisional application may be stated as follows: - on 12. 2. 73 the complainant-opposite party filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, against the four accused-petitioners for having committed offence punishable under S. 42 (b) of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with S. 22 of the Act. The allegations made in the said complaint were that the complainant was inducted as a tenant in premises No. 32b, Brindaban Basak Street, Calcutta-5, in the month of August, 1972, in respect of one ground floor room. The complainant intended to open a plastic manufacturing business in the said room and purchased the requisite machineries, furniture and fixtures for starting the said business and invested a considerable amount for the same. On 21. 8. 72 the complainant applied for electric supply in the said premises from the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), the petitioner No. 1 herein, in his own name and in the prescribed form of the Corporation. Accused No. 2, the District Engineer of the Corporation, by his letter dated September 8, 1972, intimated the complainant that supply to the previous consumer of the said premises was cut off for non-payment of outstanding dues and directed the complainant to contact the Senior Revenue Officer of the Corporation, North Regional Office. By the said letter it was further intimated to the complainant that before clearance to proceed is received from the Revenue Department of the Corporation, further correspondence cannot be entertained. The complainant was surprised to receive such a letter as he felt that he cannot be made liable or electricity supply can be withheld for non-payment of electricity bills by others of the said address. Accordingly, the complainant addressed a letter to the District Engineer on September 16, 1972, with a copy to the Senior Revenue Officer, petitioner No. 3, requesting him to reply to the same, but the accused No. 3 did not even care to reply to the said letter of the complainant. By a letter dated October 4, 1972, the Acting District Engineer requested the complainant to get in touch with the Revenue Department relating to outstanding dues and clearly mentioned that they were not in a position to proceed further unless clearance to proceed is received from the Revenue Department. On receipt of the said letter the complainant again wrote a letter to the District Engineer on 7. 10. 72 with a copy to the petitioner No. 3 and the Chairman of the Corporation. In the said letter the complainant wrote to the department concerned that there cannot be any outstanding dues as suggested in the letter dated 4. 10. 72 of petitioner No. 2 as because the Corporation has already given a new A. C. electricity supply connection at the said address in the month of May, 1972 to a tenant Sri Panchu Gopal Dey, who runs a Hosiery business there. According to the complainant, he did not receive any reply to his letter from the petitioner No. 3 but the petitioner No. 2 by a letter dated October 24, 1972 assured the complainant that his letter was referred to the Revenue Officer who shall communicate to him in due course. Unfortunately, however, the Revenue Officer made no communication in spite of repeated requests of the complainant and due to non-supply of electricity the complainant could not start his business and had to suffer huge loss after laying out a considerable sum of money in his plastic goods manufacturing business. On November 15, 1972 the complainant wrote a letter to the Acting District Engi