Madras High Court
R.R.C. Pitchaimani vs The Executive ... on 17 August, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :17.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.3939 and 3940 of 2019
R.R.C. Pitchaimani ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Executive Engineer(Distribution)
T.N.E.B.Kovilpatti,
Rep. by. P. Bagawathi Raj
S/o.Perumal
Executive Engineer,
Thoothukudi District ..Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section
482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/1st accused in Spl.C.C.No.18 of 2009
on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Thoothukudi.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan
For Respondent : Mr.B.Ramanathan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
charge sheet in Spl.C.C.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.
2. According to the petitioner the Electricity High tension
service No.190 stands in the name of Krishna Carbide having its factory
at Pasuvanthanai Road, Meenakshipuram Village, Ottapidaram Taluk,
Thoothukudi District. One Manikanda Mariappan is the Proprietor of
Krishna Carbide. According to the respondent the petitioner was
incharge of the above factory. Infact for all High Tension Industries
monthly readings were taken by Class-I Officers of the Board who are all
technically qualified. At the time of monthly reading meter was
downloaded and fed into the computer and any abnormality can be
easily find out by downloading from the computer. Apart from that there
was surprise inspection by the various squads and even as per the last
meter reading on 27.04.2003 and on surprise inspection on 06.05.2003
no adverse remarks made out against the industry suspecting their
bonafides. Till date no complaint was about low consumption of energy.
Whileso on 27.07.2002 the electricity service connection No.190 was
inspected by the officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and alleged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2019
that there was theft of energy and criminal case has been registered in
First Information Report in Crime No.56 of 2005 on the file of the
Pasuvanthanai Police Station as against the Proprietor and the petitioner
under Sections 135(a) and 135(b) of Electricity Act, 2003. Thereafter the
petitioner filed a quash petition before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.
12315 of 2017 to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No.5 of 2007(Crime No.
56 of 2005) and the charge sheet was quashed by this Court by order
dated 31.08.2007. The respondent on 23.09.2008 filed a complaint
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner and the same was
taken on file in Spl.C.C. No.18 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi for the offences under Section
135(a)(b) of Electricity Act,2003. The above said alleged occurrence took
place on 27.07.2005 and the complaint was filed only on 23.09.2008
which is beyond the period of limitation and this case is barred by
limitation. As per Section 468 of Cr.P.C. the offence under Section 135(e)
of Electricity Act, 2003, theft of energy shall be punishable with
imprisonment term which may extend to three years or with fine or with
both. Therefore cognizance was taken by the Special Court is barred by
limitation, hence this petition has been filed.
3. No counter was filed by the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2019
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
contend that the respondent has filed private complaint before the
Special Court and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.18 of 2009
for the alleged occurrence that took place on 27.07.2005 but the
complaint was filed on 23.09.2008, i.e., after limitation period of three
years. Further this petitioner is no way connected with the alleged theft
of electricity and the said premises was leased out to one Arumugam
and there is no other material produced as against this petitioner to
constitute the offence as against him. Already the same complainant filed
complaint before the Pasuvanthanai Police Station and the same was
registered in Crime No.56 of 2005 and thereafter it was taken on file in
C.C. No.5 of 2007 and the same was quashed by this Court on
31.08.2007 in Crl.O.P(MD) NO.12315 of 2017. Then after the lapse of
limitation period of three years this present complaint has been filed,
therefore the cognizance taken by the Special Court is liable to be
quashed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
contend that already the complainant had given complaint before the
jurisdiction police i.e., Pasuvanthanai Police Station in Crime No.56 of
2005 and after investigation filed final report and the same was taken on
file in C.C. No.5 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Kovilpatti and thereafter the petitioner filed a petition to quash charge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2019
sheet in C.C. No.5 of 2007 before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.12315 of
2017 and this Court while quashing the charge sheet has granted
liberty to the petitioner to file complaint in accordance with law.
Thereafter this respondent filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C
on 23.09.2008, thereby the trial Court has also taken cognizance. Further
this petitioner has not taken the plea before the trial Court and now only
introduced the new plea with regard to the limitation. Now before the
trial Court nine witnesses have been examined on the side of the
complainant and at this stage the petitioner cannot raise this point of
limitation , thereby the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
7. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the respondent
had given complaint against the petitioner and others for the offence
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. According the complainant the petitioner
and others committed theft of electricity and the same was detected by
the officials on 27.07.2005. Thereafter they lodged complaint before the
police, First Information Report was registered and the case was taken
on file in C.C. No.5 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Kovilpatti. The petitioner filed a petition before this Court to quash the
charge sheet and at that time this Court has granted liberty to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2019
complainant to file a fresh complaint in accordance with law. According
to the petitioner this Court has granted liberty to file application before
the trial Court inaccordance with law and as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
Limitation for the offence under Section 135(a)(b) is only three years and
already time was lapsed and after lapse of three years and two months
this complaint has been filed, thereby the complaint is barred by
limitation. However it is admitted by both parties that in the trial court
nine witnesses have been examined and the petitioner also participated
in the above said trial proceedings and the petitioner has not approached
the Court at the earliest point of time and now filed this petition only on
the ground of question of limitation. Since already trial was
commenced and nine witnesses were examined at this stage it is not
appropriate to interfere with the cognizance taken by the Special Court
only on the ground of limitation and the petitioner is at liberty to
approach the trial Court by agitating all the grounds raised in this
petition before the trial Court. It is for the trial Court to decide the case
on merits including the point of limitation.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Ralli .vs. Maninder Singh
Narula in Criminal Appeal No.1684 of 2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) N.
8924 of 2013). On a careful reading of the above judgment it is clear that
the case law submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2019
applicable to the present facts of the case and this case relates to Section
468 of Cr.P.C but the above said judgment relates to Section 5 of
limitation Act application filed in the Negotiable Instrument Act.
9. Therefore as discussed supra this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the petition.
10. Considering the date of offence and considering the facts
and circumstances of the case it appropriate to direct the Special Court
to complete the trial proceedings within the time stipulated by this
Court.
11. Accordingly the Special court is directed to complete the
trial proceedings in Spl.C.C. No.18 of 2009 as early as possible
preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
12. At this juncture the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner requested this Court to pass order regarding dispensing with
the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Special Court. As far
as dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the
trial Court is concerned, it can only be decided by the trial Court on
application filed by the petitioner. On such application being filed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2019
petitioner, the trial Court is directed to consider the same in accordance
with law.
13. With the above observation and direction, the Criminal
Original Petition stands disposed of. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
To
The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2019
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6075 of 2019
17.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
