Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/3438/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3438 of 2010
=========================================================
LAXMANBHAI
ODHAVJIBHAI PATEL & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BM MANGUKIYA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
KARTIK PANDYA, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR KB PUJARA for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 06/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioners
are consumers of electricity. They have been granted electric
connection by respondent No.2 Company. On the allegation that the
meter for such electricity connection was tampered with through some
electronic device, complaint bearing C.R.No.II-601 of 2009 has been
lodged before Kapodra Police Station, Surat on 19.7.2009 for
offence punishable under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act,
2003. In the complaint, it is alleged, inter alia, that since the
meter in question was not recording the consumption of units
properly, the meter was kept under surveillance. Readings were taken
on 7th July 2009 when reading of 2090 was noted. On 15th
July 2009, another reading was taken when the meter reading was found
2549. Thereafter on 17th July 2009, the checking squad of
the Electricity Company visited the site of the petitioners. They
were intimated that the meter is being checked and they should not,
therefore, leave the place. Thereupon, they took down the meter
reading which came to 1001. Since on 17th July 2009, the
meter recorded less units than the previously recorded units of 7th
and 15th July, the meter was seized and sent for testing.
It is alleged that in the premise where the meter is installed, 10
points of electric lines, 8 fans, one TV, one refrigerator and one
window AC were installed. It was therefore alleged that the
petitioners have committed theft of electricity. They are therefore
liable to be punished for offence under section 135, 138 and 150 of
the Indian Electricity Act.
Counsel
for the petitioners vehemently contended that the meter itself was
defective. It is not a case of theft of electricity. He drew my
attention to electricity bill dated 29th June 2009 wherein
it is stated that “meter stop/defective will be changed”.
He contended that the petitioners were receiving bill on the average
consumption of last six months. There was, therefore, no question of
tampering with the meter. In any case, as per the Electricity
Company itself, the meter was defective. No case for theft of
electricity is made out. The complaint should, therefore, be
quashed.
On
the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the basis of
affidavit in reply dated 20th July 2010 contended that the
recording of units in the disputed meter was erratic. The meter was,
therefore, kept under surveillance. Regular checking of the meter was
done on 7th and 15th July 2009. It was found
that on 17th July 2009 meter reading of the units was
lower than the previous reading recorded on 7th and 15th
July 2009 which clearly showed that there was tampering with the
meter. He contended that electronic devices are available through
which without physically tampering the meter, recorded units can be
changed. He further pointed out that not only in the residential
premises of the petitioner where the present electricity connection
was given, but in as many as five other electricity connections given
to the petitioners for industrial purpose also, such tampering has
been detected for which separate complaints have been lodged.
Upon
perusal of the impugned complaint and other documents on record and
upon consideration of the submissions of the counsel for either
side, I am of the opinion that it is not a case where complaint can
be quashed. Prima facie allegations have been made of tampering with
the electrical meter and theft of electricity. If the allegations
made in the complaint are believed to be true, offence under section
135 of the Indian Electricity Act would be made out. At this stage
when even the investigation is not completed, it is not possible to
take into account the various defences raised by the petitioners.
Allegations of the complainant, Electricity Company, are that the
meter readings were erratic. It was possible only through tampering
with the electrical meter. Devices are now available through which
without damaging the meter or leaving any traces of physical
tampering, consumption being recorded by the meter can be
manipulated. These are aspects which need to be investigated into
and the complaint cannot be quashed even before full investigation is
carried out.
In
the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. Notice is
discharged. Interim relief is vacated.
At
the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this order
shall stand stayed till 30th October 2010.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top