RAJPAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners who are directors of M/S Ess Pee Dhatu Udyog, which is a company duly incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 are stated to have indulged in the theft of electricity amounting to Rs.2,99,000,00.00.

(2.) The facts of the case are at page-39 of the petition which is the complaint made to the T.I of Police Station- Lodhikheda (M.P). In the said complaint, it is revealed that upon an inspection on 04/10/1998 at 4:00 A.M by the D.I.G (V & S) of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur (M.P) the cables leading to the meter box are alleged to have been found tampered with and the insulation is shown as having being removed. Under the circumstances the Electricity Board arrived at the conclusion that electricity could be shorted from the line directly without passing through the meter. At page-40 is the assessment of the loss which prima facie appears to be speculative even as per the case of the prosecution itself in which the Electricity Board states that "mDr izdj.k esa yxHkx :0 2]99]00]000@ & 2 djksM+ 99 yk[k dh pksjh gksus dk vuqeku gSA"

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the grounds that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners herein and disputed questions of fact or questions relating to their innocence cannot be gone into in a petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C and the disputed questions of facts are best left to the trial Court for consideration. From page 17-21 are copies of the extracts from the register maintained by the Registrar of Companies under Form 32, in which the petitioner No.1 is shown to have resigned from the Company on 01/08/1997. The petitioner No.2 is shown to have resigned on 01/01/1996 and the petitioner No.3 is shown to have resigned on 04/01/1995. Undisputedly, the petitioners herein have resigned on a date before the detection of the alleged offence. Originally the case was registered against three of the employees of the Company. However, at the stage of filing of the charge sheet, the names of the petitioners herein were also added as accused and sent up for trial. Of the three persons who are originally mentioned in the F.I.R, one is the Production Manager of the Company and the second is the Managing Director of the Company.