High CourtsSingle Bench

Harbajan Singh vs State

Delhi High Court · Decided on 5 August 1999 · Citation: (1999) 50 DRJ 821

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Electricity Act, 1910 — Section 39, 44 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 379
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Misc. (Main) Petition No. 2157 of 1998
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 232 words

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.—By this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No. 12/97 registered under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code at the Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi. On perusal of FIR in question, it appears that the petitioner''s premises were inspected by the enforcement staff of DESU on 3.1.1997, when it was discovered that the electricity was being abstracted fraudulently by tampering the meter. In Ramesh Chander Vs. State, it was held that the mere existence of the tampered meter is not enough to attract the provisions of Section 39 of the Act and there is no presumption of dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of electric energy on discovery of tampered meters. The presumption u/s 39 will arise if artificial means were employed to abstract, consumer or use energy. In my opinion, the case is fully covered by the decision in the case of Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Delhi (Supra). Consequently, I am of the opinion, that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 12/97 registered u/s 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with 379 of the Indian Penal Code at the Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi, is quashed.