Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court

High Court Dismisses Petition in Electricity Theft Case, Directs Special Court to Expedite Trial: No Irregularity in Procedure

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by the Honorable Mr. Justice R. Sakthivel, dismissed a criminal original petition challenging the jurisdiction in an electricity theft case. The Court, in its judgment, directed the Special Court in Tuticorin to dispose of the matter expeditiously, setting a deadline of April 26, 2024.

The case, registered as Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22491 of 2018, involves the petitioner, Jeyaprakash, accused of stealing a substantial amount of electricity for his ice factory. The prosecution estimated the theft at 3,30,180 units of electricity, translating to a financial loss of Rs.33,84,345/- to TANGEDCO.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing jurisdictional errors and arguing the applicability of Section 126 over Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the court found substantial merit in the prosecution’s argument, underscoring the petitioner’s previous similar offenses.

In his observation, Justice R. Sakthivel stated, “This Court does not find any irregularity by the Special Court in taking cognizance in the aforementioned manner.” He emphasized that the Special Court’s decision to proceed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act was justified, considering the evidence and the nature of the offense.

The defense’s claim of impossibility to use an agricultural connection for industrial purposes was also addressed. The Court carefully considered the submissions from both sides, including the detailed investigation report and the testimonies recorded.

 Date of Decision: 18/01/2024

Jeyaprakash VS State rep by Inspector of Police

 

Latest Legal News