Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by Birdhi Chand who has been convicted under sec. 40 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
(2.) THE facts of the case are not in dispute. THE Applicant was an employee of the Pali Electric Supply Company. It appears that he is also the secretary of the Trade Union attached to the Company. It further appears that there was going to be a meeting of the Trade Union on the 19th June, 1953, at 6 P. M. THE applicant was on duty on that date from 4 P. M. to mid-night. He wanted as secretary to attend that meeting but was refused permission or leave by the Company. THEreupon, what he did was that at 7. 30 P. M. that day he switched off the main line for ten minutes with the result that no electric energy was supplied to the town for that period. He says that he did that in obedience to certain directions from the Trade Union. The question is whether in those circumstances the applicant was guilty under sec. 40 of the Indian Electricity Act. That section reads as follows: - "whoever maliciously causes energy to be wasted or diverted or, with intent to cut off the supply of energy, cuts or injures, or attempts to cut or injure, any electric supply-line or works, shall be punishable with imprisonment. . . . . . ". The charge against the applicant was that with interest to cut off the supply of energy he cut the electric supply line. Learned counsel urges that no damage was caused to the electric works or to the electric supply line, and there is no case the applicant injured or attempted to injure any electric supply line or works. He also urges that as there was no injury to any electric supply line or works, it could not be said that the applicant had cut any electric supply line. His contention is that there must be an actual cutting of the wires or something of that nature before it can be said that an electric supply line was cut. I cannot agree with this contention. One way in which the electric supply line can be cut is to cut off the wires actually. Another way, by which an electric supply line can be cut, is to remove the switches, because by such removal the electric supply line is cut and energy does not proceed beyond the point where the switch is removed. Therefore, if a person removes a certain switch, he must be held to have cut the electric supply line, even though he has done no damage to the line in any shape or form. The applicant, therefore, by removing the switch and by keeping it removed for ten minutes, certainly cut the electric supply line from the Electric Company to the consumers. The next point, that is urged, is that this is not a case where the applicant acted maliciously. I am of opinion that the word 'maliciously' does not qualify the words 'with intent to cut off the supply of energy' in sec. 40. The word 'maliciously' only qualifies the words 'causes energy to be wasted or dive red' Where a person, with intent to cut off the supply of energy, cuts the supply line, no malice, in my opinion, is required at all. In this view of the matter, I am of opinion that on the facts admitted by the applicant himself, he has been rightly convicted. There is no force in this revision, and it is hereby dismissed. .;