Bachawat, J. - (1.) The two connected appeals raise common questions of construction of Ss. 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and R. 138 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The appellants in both appeals have been convicted under Ss. 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and R. 138 (b) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1963 has also been convicted under S. 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd. supplied electrical energy in Patna, Patna city and Dinapur to about 22,000 consumers, of which about 900 were industrial power consumers. The normal wastage of energy in course of transmission was 15 to 16 per cent of the units generated. In 1958, the Chief Inspector of the Company noticed an extra abnormal loss of about 8 per cent which could not be due to wastage in transmission and suspected extensive theft of the Company's electrical energy. Vigorous investigations were started, and after surprise raids and inspections, it was discovered that the meters of several consumers had been tampered with. Both the appellants are industrial power consumers at Dinapur. The Inspectors found that the meters of both the appellants had been tampered with. In respect of both meters they found a seal on the meter cover broken and a sealing nut loosened exposing a stud hole on the meter cover. Through the exposed stud hole it was possible to insert a thin wire, dust or moisture inside the meter and thereby to retard the rotation of the inside disc. In due course, complaints were filed against the appellants.
(3.) Rule 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, requires that the consumer shall use all reasonable means in his power to ensure that no seal affixed to his meter is broken otherwise than by the supplier. If the seal is broken in contravention of R. 56, even the consumer who has not himself broken the seal is punishable under R. 138 with fine, unless he proves that he used all reasonable means in his power to ensure that the seal should not be broken. In the absence of such proof, the liability of the consumer in respect of the breakage of the seal is absolute under R. 138 (b). The appellants were rightly convicted of the offence under R. 138 (b).;