Case comment IPC:-
Avtar Singh V. State of Panjab
AvtarSingh vs State Of Punjab is one of such Cases which show
that what law says and What it intends vary with time and
circumstance as the rationale of the Society evolves.
This case is bases on the principle of Theft under IPC, i.e: Sec.378,
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property
out of the possession of any person without that person’s
consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to
commit theft. It indicates that for the crime of theft possession is
important not the ownership.
Essentials Of Theft
1. Intention to take dishonestly.
2. Moveable property.
3. Out of possession of any person.
4. Without consent.
5. Moves such property for taking.
Facts of the case:-
In this case, Avtar Singh was convicted By the Punjab High Court
for the theft of Electricity under Section 392 And Section 503 of
the Indian Electricity Act(9 of 1910) for the dishonest abstraction,
Consumption and usage of energy.
Avtar Singh appeals to the Supreme Court Regarding the same
but changes his Contention by challenging that his Prosecution
was instituted by a person not Mentioned in Section 50 of the act
which Deals with the same. Matters relating to The Indian
Electricity Act (9 of 1910) had Come up before but there was no
Unanimity regarding the involvement of The I.P.C.. The judges in
this case decided That as Section 378 of I.P.C. did not make it
theft, Section 39 did so but Independently and that Section 39
itself Provides for a punishment without Connection with I.P.C. If
the two were to Be connected, the Code would not have Been
silent about it. In addition to this, the Offence mentioned in
Section 39 is the One connected to Section 50 which limits The
people capable of filing it. The last Important point put forward by
the bench Was that the appellant had been Contending about the
party filing the Complaint since the beginning whereas The
prosecution did not. So the appellant Was acquitted.
Was the judgement appropriate?
In my opinion, The court’s judgment held importance for The
times to come when the availability And usage of electricity would
drastically And exponentially increase. With the rule Of literal
interpretation put to use, theft Was created via fiction but it’s
Punishment was not added. This is a Legitimate area which
needed correction And a rule regarding the same could have Been
formulated by the court in order to Bring it to the attention of the
Legislature. Not doing so did create a precedent for The future
cases to use but without Clearing the blur.
Conclusion:-
The work of the Judiciary is to recognize A wrong and make it
justiciable as per the Guidelines of the Legislature. If one fails To
do a task , it is the duty of the other to Fill in the void so that no
lacunae are left For the guilty to escape while the innocent Pay for
acts they did not do. From this Case we can understand that no
matter How law is read, the intention of equity Should not be
compromised for Convicting the accused.
