GOVINDASAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, Govindaswami, has been convicted under Section 44 (c) of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 379 Indian Penal Code read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default, simple imprisonment for three weeks for the latter offence alone.

(2.) PETITIONER is running a business called Tamilnad Sound Service at Tirukoilur. He is actually a resident of Karadai village. On 26-11-1959 P. W. 2 (Soundararajan) a wireman in Tirukoilur Electric System, went to the premises of the petitioner to take meter-reading and found the meter was not recording and reported the matter to P. W. 1, Desikachari, Supervisor of the Tiruchi Electricity System at Tirukoilur. On that occasion, the petitioner was present in the shop. On 10-121959, a new meter was fixed. On 24-12-1959. P. W. 2 again went to the place and found the meter was not recording the consumption of electricity. He reported the matter to P. W. 1, who also visited the premises. On 25-12-1959 P. W. 4, Samuel, Assistant! Engineer; Tiruchi Electric Supplies, having headquarters at Vriddhachalam, went to Tirukoilur on getting phone message from P. W. I and found a wire device behind the meter. He wanted to remove the plaster and trace out the wires; but the. petitioner objected to it. Subsequently, P. W. I went to the place and had the wire device photographed. On 4-11960, P. W. 5, R. K. Srinivasan. Divisional Electric Superintending Engineer, went to the place and detected behind the meter board a wire inside the wall kept for the purpose of preventing. the meter from running. Both the Courts below have accepted the evidence of these prosecution witnesses and found that the electric, energy was tapped by the use of the wire device, and I see no reason to differ from the said finding.

(3.) THE learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a resident of Karadai village and that there is no proof that he abstracted the electric energy. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention. I have already pointed out that the petitioner is running Tamilnad Sound Service at the premises in question. The evidence in this case shows that he was present on more than one occasion when the servants of the electric system went to the premises. It cannot be disputed in this case that the meter was under the control of the petitioner. It is clear from what I have stated that there was a connecting wire device to prevent the meter from working properly. On. these facts, a presumption arises, under Section 44 of the Act, that the abstraction of electric energy has been caused by the accused as a consumer knowingly and wilfully.