1936 (7) TMI 12 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:

1. Criminal conspiracy to commit theft of electrical energy.
2. Charges under Section 120-B, IPC, read with Section 39, Electricity Act, 1910, and Section 379, IPC.
3. Misjoinder of charges and joint trial legality.
4. Application of Section 39, Electricity Act, 1910.
5. Convictions based on evidence and individual involvement.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Theft of Electrical Energy:
The appellants were charged with participating in a criminal conspiracy to commit theft by dishonest consumption and use of electrical energy belonging to the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation between January 1934 and January 1935. The conspiracy led to thefts at Bharat Laxmi Cinema, Jupiter Cinema, and other places. The prosecution alleged that the conspiracy involved tampering with electric meters to show lower readings than the actual consumption.

2. Charges under Section 120-B, IPC, read with Section 39, Electricity Act, 1910, and Section 379, IPC:
All the accused were charged under Section 120-B, IPC, read with Section 39, Electricity Act, 1910, and Section 379, IPC. Specific charges included:
- Babulal Chowkhani: Theft by dishonest consumption of electrical energy.
- Sailendra Nath Mukherji, Kumud Nath Nandy, and Ganesh Bahadur: Aiding and abetting the theft.
- Sailendra Nath Mukherji, Rash Behari Shaw, Sushil Kumar Ghose, and Jagadish Singh: Aiding and abetting theft at Jupiter Cinema.

3. Misjoinder of Charges and Joint Trial Legality:
The defense argued that the joint trial of all accused violated Sections 233, 234, and 235, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and was not justified under Section 239, CrPC. The court held that the test for a valid joint trial depends on the accusation, not the trial result. The court found no illegality in the joint trial as the charges were framed based on the evidence provided by the prosecution, indicating a single conspiracy.

4. Application of Section 39, Electricity Act, 1910:
The defense argued that Section 39, Electricity Act, 1910, did not apply as there was no theft within the meaning of the section. The court held that Section 39 deems dishonest abstraction, consumption, or use of energy as theft, even if the electrical energy had passed through the consumer's meter. The court rejected the argument that the offense should fall under Section 44, Electricity Act, 1910, and upheld the application of Section 39.

5. Convictions Based on Evidence and Individual Involvement:
The court reviewed the evidence against each accused separately:
- Babulal Chowkhani: Convicted of theft and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.
- Ganesh Bahadur: Convicted of abetment and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment.
- Jagadish Singh: Convicted of conspiracy and abetment, sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment.
- Sailendra Nath Mukherji: Convicted of conspiracy and abetment, sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment.
- Sushil Kumar Ghose, Manindra Nath Dey, Rash Behari Shaw: Convicted of conspiracy, sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.
- Patal Chandra Santra: Convicted of conspiracy, sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment.
- Panch Cowri Banerji, Kumud Nath Nundy, Sailendra Sanyal, Hara Narayan Chatterji: Acquitted.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals of Rash Behari Shaw, Sushil Kumar Ghose, Jagadish Singh, Babulal Chowkhani, Ganesh Bahadur, and Sailendra Nath Mukherji, and upheld their convictions and sentences. The appeals of Patal Chandra Santra and Manindra Nath Dey were allowed, and they were discharged from their bail bonds and released. The court emphasized the need for caution in framing conspiracy charges to avoid lengthy and complicated trials.

← Previous Next →