Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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

 

Similar News