1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Interpretation of Statutes

AVTAR SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1955 SC 1107

  

AVTAR SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB

AIR 1955 SC 1107.

FACTS

The Appellant was prosecuted for theft of electrical energy from the Punjab State Electricity Board and 104 was convicted. He appealed to the requisite courts challenging the validity of his conviction as he stated that his conviction was illegal in view of certain statutory provisions.

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current case was whether the conviction was illegal as the process was not started as per Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

RULE-

  1. Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910
  2. Section 50 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910
  3. Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

  1. This Hon'ble Court examined the view expressed in Emperor v. Vishwanath and showed complete agreement towards it. The judgement cited that “The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that the offence was not an offence against the Act because it was one punishable under the provisions of s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code. We think that this would not have been an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code if it had not been for the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. It was, therefore, an offence which was created by that Section and we are of the opinion that the legislature intended Section 50 to apply to an offence of this nature.”
  2. The Supreme Court applied the principle of ut res magis valent quam pereat and held that since the crime was against the Act and not against the Code, the requirement of Section 50 of the act must be followed. However, an accused found guilty under Section 39 of the act has to be punished under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code because Section 39 creates a fiction that an offence under Section 39 of this act would also be deemed to be an offence under this code.

DISSENTING OPINION-

Following cases discuss a contrary opinion that theft was not an offence against the act.

  1. In State v. Maganlal Chunilal Bogawat, it was stated that s.39 of the Electricity Act only extended the operation of Section 379  of the Penal Code
  2. In Tulsi Prasad v. The State, it was reasoned that Section 39 could not create in offence as it did not provide for any punishment.
  3. Public Prosecutor v. Abdul Wahab it was observed that since s.39 created a theft within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code by means of a fiction, it followed that as the fiction could not be departed from, the offence so fictionally created was one under the Code.

RELEVANT THEORY

UT RES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT

The words of a statute must be construed so that a reasonable meaning is given to them. This principle must be applied by the court except in cases when there is absolute intractability of language. It is on this principle that a court presumes the Constitutionality of a provision and prefers an interpretation in favour of the competence of the legislature or any other authority laying down the rule of law.