A retired partner cannot be held liable for offences committed by the firm after his retirement unless it is shown that he was involved in the commission of the offences or that he was in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the firm and was solely responsible for the conduct of the business.

Since the parties are the same in both the applications and identical question of law is raised in both these matters, these two applications were taken up together, heard and a common order is rendered hereunder.

2. CC 331 of 1996 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam is with reference to the complaint dated 1-5-1994 by Asst. Executive Engineer, TNEB against Thavamani Ammal Prabakar, Rajendran and Md. Ismail. The allegation is that when a raid party of TNEB checked the High Tension Service Connection No. 01001 installed in Venkateswara Industries situate at Madurai Rajapalayam Road, it was found that the factory was running and all the lights were burning. But the meter was not running. On checking it was found that with a view to avoid the recording of the consumption on the meter a line had been taken from the transformer by passing the meter and energy was drawn directly from the transformer and this has been done with a view to commit theft of electricity and that the accused have committed theft of electricity in a sum of Rs. 1,49,58,239/- and, therefore, they are liable to be punished under the relevant sections of the Indian Electricity Act.

3. The gist of the complainant in C.C. No. 332 is as follows :-

The complaint in CC No. 332 is Assistant Executive Engineer, TNEB, Kallipatti, Thavamani, Prabakar Soundararajan, Muthukumaraswamy Mariyapalraj are shown as the accused. The allegation is that on 4-6-1994 the Executive Engineer Pasumalai inspected the Sri Venkateswara Industries of which the accused 2 to 4 are partners and during the inspection the sealing on the top of the transformer was found cut and opening the mouth and interchanging the connection the current going to the meter was restrained and it blocked the correct reading of the meter. On 3-5-1994 the electric connection was given to the Industry after initiating police action on 1-4-1994 for the earlier offence committed on 30-4-1994. As the accused failed to pay the electricity charges for April 1994 the connection was disconnected on 19-5-1994. But the accused obtained an order of injunction from civil Court whereupon the connection was again restored on 30-5-1994 and it is between this period when there was no current the accused had committed this offence and hence the accused are liable to be proceeded against under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. Thus CC 331 relates to the offence said to have been committed on 30-4-1994.

4. As regards CC 331 of 1996 the complaint is with reference to the offence alleged to have been committed during the period of disconnection of the service connection on 19-5-1994 and the restoration of the same on 30-5-1994. The petitioner is one of the accused by name Muruganandam. His contention is that the petitioner had already retired from the firm on 9-12-1993 itself and this has been also brought to the notice of the Electricity Board and the petitioner, therefore, cannot be proceeded with for the alleged offence which is said to have taken place on 30-4-1994, and between 19-5-1994 and 30-5-1994. The petitioner has produced before this Court certificates from the Registrar of Firms, letter from the Commercial Tax Officer, copy of the public notice given on retirement, the intimation sent to the Electricity Board, the Excise Department and the Bank about the retirement of the petitioner and the acknowledgment cards received from them. A public notice has been given in 'Malaimurasu, which is published in the issue dated 25-4-1994. On 9-12-1993, the petitioner has informed the Superintending Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle about his retirement with effect from 9-12-1993 and also requesting the Superintending Engineer to transfer the security deposit which stands in the firms account in the name of K. Thavamani, Managing Partner, Sri Venkateswara Industries. The petitioner has on the same day addressed letter to the Superintending Engineer TNEB of the Thiruma