Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. Amol Mardikar, learned advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent.

#2. The petitioner is facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge- 3rd, Chandrapur in Special Case No. 17/2005 under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. An application came to be filed by the respondent complainant praying that he should be permitted to give demonstration to the Court as regards the manner in which the theft of electricity was done. That application came to be opposed. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an oder on 12th June, 2009 and granted the said application and also directed 2 that the said demonstration can be done at the time of examination of the witnesses on behalf of the respondent. This order dated 12th June, 2009 is challenged in this petition.

#3. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Mardikar for the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has appreciated the point and has granted the application. As the learned Judge has noted the Court must know the method by which the meter came to be tampered. Learned Advocate Mr. Mardikar submitted that the stage at which the application came to be made by the respondent is premature as the evidence is yet to commence.

#4. After having considered the impugned order, it is clear that the learned Judge has permitted demonstration to be done only at the stage of examination of the witnesses on behalf of the respondent complainant. Hence, the argument advanced that application is made at a premature stage can not be accepted. 3

#5. Even otherwise, the request on the part of the respondent to demonstrate the method adopted by the petitioner is reasonable because the Court must understand the method practiced by the petitioner on the basis of the allegations levelled by the respondent. The impugned order is very much clear and it mentions the stage at which demonstration is to be done. Hence, no interference is required. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE