JHALKAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(MPH)-1980-10-17
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on October 06,1980

JHALKAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BHAGALPUR ELEC. SUPPLY CO.,LTD. V. HARI PD. SAHAY [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KUMAR GHOSE VS. SECRETARY INDIAN PSYCHO ANALYTICAL SOCIETY [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RAMPALSINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1991-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSUL HAQUE GAZI VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1997-7-13] [REFERRED ON]
KALURAM VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. SEETARAM [LAWS(CHH)-2013-11-14] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE applicant-accused Jhalkansingh having been convicted under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of the IPC and the other applicant-accused Sumer, having been convicted under Section 39 of the Electricity Act read with Section 379/109 of the I. P. C. and each having been sentenced to pay the fine of Rs. 250/and in default of fine, one month's S. I. by both the Courts below, present revision is now preferred against the same.
(2.)ON 14-1-1976. meter reader Bhandari hd gone to the tube well of the applicant-accused Jhalkansingh. In the cover of the meter, a hole was found and one wooden piece was found inserted and meter at that time was not recording the consumption of energy, although the tube well, at the relevant time, was in operation. At the relevant time. Jhalkansingh was not present, but the other applicant-accused Sumer was present who took out the inserted piece of wood and threw it away. Seizures were duly made and on the written complaint of the officer-in-charge of the M. P. Electricity Circle Gadarwada. both the applicants-accused were put up for trial for the offence for which they have been convicted and sentenced. The applicants-accused took the plea of alibi. The trial Court convicted and sentenced both applicants-accused. Appeal preferred by them was also dismissed and hence now, their present revision.
(3.)THE learned Counsel for the applicants-accused has urged before me that the F. I. R. in the case, being delayed, does not deserve reliance. It is, next, urged that institution of the prosecution in the instant case has not been made by the proper person as enjoined by Section 50 of the Electricity Act. It is also urged that the conviction, as made, was bad in law. inasmuch as, conviction could not be made both under Section 39 of the Electricity Act and under Section 379 of the Penal Code. It is also urged that the applicants-accused could not be punished twice, inasmuch as, the applicant-accused Jhalkansingh has already been penalised by imposition of fine of Rs. 817. 92 p.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.