The Determination of Actual User and Intent Requires Evidential Trial, Not Summary Determination Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Calcutta High Court in Electricity Theft Case
In a significant ruling, the High Court of Calcutta dismissed a revisional application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against Sri Amiya Ranjan Sasmal, the owner of premises leased to a nursing home, under the Electricity Act. The case involves allegations of electricity theft through meter tampering.
Legal Point of the Judgement: The court focused on the responsibilities of a property owner for crimes such as electricity theft under Sections 135(1)(b) & (c) of the Electricity Act, asserting that mere ownership does not absolve the petitioner of liability, especially when the owner remains the consumer on record.
Facts and Issues: Sri Amiya Ranjan Sasmal faced charges following a complaint by WBSEDCL officials who discovered meter tampering at his property, now a nursing home, leading to a loss of revenue. Despite not directly using the electricity, Sasmal was listed as the consumer, which implicated him in the alleged theft. The petitioner contended that his tenants, operating the nursing home, were the actual users and therefore solely responsible.
Court Assessment:
Tenancy and Liability: Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay noted, “While the premises were rented out, the petitioner continued to be registered as the consumer, thereby not absolving him of potential liability linked to the meter in question.”
Role of Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The court highlighted its limited role in quashing proceedings at this stage, emphasizing, “Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not the court’s duty to delve into the veracity of claims which requires a full trial.”
Need for Trial: The judge pointed out that the allegations necessitate a detailed examination of evidence which cannot be appropriately handled at the revisional stage. “The complexity of determining actual user and intent behind alleged electricity theft demands more than a prima facie evaluation,” Justice Bandyopadhyay remarked.
Decision: The court refused to quash the criminal proceedings and directed that the trial continue to thoroughly investigate the allegations of electricity theft.
Date of Decision: May 6, 2024.
Sri Amiya Ranjan Sasmal vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.,
