Effect of non-issuance of notice u/s 20 and non-exhibition of Mahazar u/s 26.

This is a criminal revision case filed by P.W. 1, K. Sundaram, Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Erode, against the judgment dt. 12-8-1983 in C.C. No. 752 of 1982 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erode, acquitting the accused S. P. Rajamanickkam, the first respondent herein, under S. 248(1), Cr.P.C. finding that the prosecution has not proved its case against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

2. The case of the prosecution is that prior to 12-10-1982, the first respondent herein has committed theft of 6136 units of electricity the cost of which is Rs. 12, 272/- from the service connection bearing S.E. No. 361/K which service connection had been given in his favour for running a powerloom situate at M.G.R. Street, Veerappan Chatram, Erode. The charge-sheet had been filed against the first respondent herein under S. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as well as under S. 379, I.P.C

3. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 1, K. Sundaram, P.W. 2, Shanmugasundaram and P.W. 3 Thangaraju, Sub-Inspector Western Region, Crime Branch, North Police Station Erode, were examined and Ex. P-1, the report given by P.W. 2, Assistant Divisional Engineer, dt. 13-10-1982, Ex. P-2, the report of P.W. 1 dt. 16-10-1982, Ex. P-3, the meter card and Ex. P-4, the letter of P.W. 1 dt. 12-10-1982 were filed. M.Os. the meter and M.O. 2 series (seals) were produced before the lower Court. No witness has been examined on the side of the accused. On a consideration of the above evidence, both oral and documentary, the lower Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case against the accused, the first respondent herein, beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted him. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower Court. P.W. 1 has come forward with this Criminal Revision Case.

4. It is inter alia contended on behalf of the petitioner herein that the lower Court has not properly appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary and as such, the order of acquittal of the first respondent herein is not correct and in accordance with law

5. The point for consideration is whether there is any infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court

6. It is provided under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910

"20.(1) A licensee or any person duly authorised by a licensee may, at any reasonable time, and on informing the occupier of this intention, enter any premises to which energy is or has been supplied by him or any premises or land, under, over, along, across, in or upon which the electric supply-lines or other works have been lawfully placed by him for the purpose of -

(a) inspecting, testing, repairing or altering the electric supply-lines, meters, fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of energy belonging to the licensee; or

(b) ascertaining the amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply; or

(c) removing, where a supply of energy is no longer required, or where the licensee is authorised to take away and cut off such supply, any electric supply-lines, meters fittings, works or apparatus belonging to the licensee

(2) A licensee or any person authorised as aforesaid may also, in pursuance of a special order in this behalf made by a Magistrate of the first class or in a presidency-town, by a Presidency Magistrate and after giving not less than twenty-four hours' notice in writing to the occupier -(a) enter any premises or land referred to in sub-section (1) for any of the purposes mentioned therein;

(b) enter any premises to which energy is to be supplied by him, for the purpose of examining and testing the electric wires, fittings, works and apparatus for the use of energy, belonging to the consumer).

(3) Where a consumer refused to allow a licensee or any person authorised as aforesaid to enter his premises (of land) in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), or when such licensee or person has so entered, refuse