Thakur Prasad Chaudhary vs Emperor

Varma, J.—This is a petition on behalf of Thakur Prasad Choudhary who has been convicted under Rule 62(3)(a) and 107 of the Indian Electricity Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150, in default one month''s simple imprisonment. The charge against the petitioner was that he had extended his building in dangerous proximity to an electric supply line and had ignored the provisions of Rule 62(3)(a). The position is this: Two poles stand outside the land of the petitioner. The line in between, on account of a curvature in the road, passes above the land of the petitioner.

The petitioner wanted to have the line removed and he made a request, which he was entitled to make under the rules, but for certain reasons the authorities in charge of the Electrical Department could not comply with his request. It appears from Ex. A in the case that the Electric Supply Company were not prepared to comply with the request of the petitioner until the beginning of the cold weather of 1932. That being the state of affairs the petitioner continued the construction of his house the wall of which has been found to be at not more than 4 inches from the aerial line. The act of the petitioner is clearly in contravention of the rule as it stands. Mr. Satyendra Nath Banerji argues that as the line passes over the petitioner''s land the act of the Electric Supply Co., amounts to trespass, and that the petitioner in extending his house on his own land was not guilty of a breach of the provisions of Rule 62(3)(a).

The rule runs thus:

If, at any time subsequent to the erection of an aerial line, any person proposes to erect a new building or structure, whether permanent or temporary or to make in or upon any building or structure any permanent or temporary addition or alteration he shall, if such building, structure, addition or alteration would render the aerial line accessible otherwise than by the aid of a ladder or other special appliance, give notice in writing of his intention to the licensee or owner, as the case may be, and to the Electric Inspector and shall furnish therewith a scale drawing showing the proposed building, structure, addition or alteration and the scaffolding required during its construction, and shall not commence work upon the building, structure, addition or alteration until the Electric Inspector has certified that neither during nor after the execution of the work will the aerial line be so accessible.

The civil rights of the petitioner would not in any way protect him against criminal liability for his acts and omissions under the rule just quoted.

He has every right to move against the Electric Supply Co. to have the wire removed from over his land; but the wire being where it is, he was not justified in law in effecting additions and alterations in his house making the aerial line running over his land accessible otherwise than by the aid of a ladder or other special appliance. The plan of the house (Ex. 15) read with the evidence of P.W. 3 shows that the Electric wire is too close to the building of the petitioner and is easily accessible without any special appliance or the help of a ladder. The evidence of the defence witnesses does not help the petitioner very much. The case against the petitioner has been made out.

I would therefore affirm his conviction under Rule 62(3)(a) of the Electricity Rules. On the question of sentence it appears that the upper storey of the building in question has fallen down during the last earthquake and the petitioner has suffered serious loss. The offence is of a technical nature and a sentence of a heavy fine is uncalled for. I therefore reduce the sentence to a fine of Rs. 5, in default five days'' simple imprisonment. The remainder of the fine if paid will be refunded.