BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 24 / 11 / 2023 Pronounced on 18 / 01 / 2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22491 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.10559 and 10560 of 2018 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22491 of 2018 Jeyaprakash ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State rep by Inspector of Police, Kulasekarapattinam Police Station, Tuticorin District.

(Cr.No.102 of 2011)

2.V.Muthukrishnan Asst. Executive Engineer (Distribution)

TANGEDCO Tiruchendhur, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records relating to Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent-2 : Mr.B.Ramanthan Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed on 18.12.2018 praying to quash Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin.

2.Heard Mr.R.Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent State and Mr.B.Ramanthan, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant.

3.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the aforesaid case. The first respondent filed a charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 135(1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003 based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent on 07.04.2011.

4.The case of the prosecution runs thus:

The petitioner herein is running an Ice Factory at Kallamozhi, Tiruchendur in the name and style of “M/S Joyce Ice Company” and he is a consumer of two service connections viz., 81 and 163 (Tariff III B). In the very same place, a free agricultural service connection No.82 (Tariff VI) is standing in the name of the petitioner's father-Gayes. On 07.04.2011 at about 04.00hours in the early morning, the second respondent along with other officials inspected the ice factory which was running at that time. On inspection, they found that the meter of the said Ice Factory did not show any reading and remained at '00.00 KW'. On further examination, they detected that electricity was stolen from the free agricultural service connection No.82 (Tariff VI) by extending the same to the Ice Factory and found that the petitioner has committed theft of electricity for about 365 days. It was estimated that 3,30,180 units of electricity was stolen causing a loss to the tune of Rs.33,84,345/- to the second respondent.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is using industrial service connection which requires 75 Horse Power, whereas agricultural service connection requires only 05 Horse Power supply. Therefore, it is highly impossible for the petitioner to use electricity provided for agricultural activities to run factory. He further submitted that the date of alleged occurrence is 07.04.2011 and FIR was registered on the same day under section 135 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act; that assuming the averments made in the complaint to be true, even then, Section 126 of the Electricity Act alone would apply; that the first respondent wrongly filed a charge sheet under Section 135(1)(a) of Electricity Act; and that the act of the respondents is malafide. He further submitted that the petitioner herein filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12720 of 2011 before this Court and this Court has directed the first respondent-Police to look into the provisions of law and find out as to whether any offence has been made out; and that the first respondent, without considering the said order, filed final report dated 23.08.2011 to the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur on 20.09.2011. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the Electricity Act, 2003, the Special Court