IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1735 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/03/2009 IN CMP 6495/2008 IN CC.1616/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- K.G.VINOD, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, KOOVAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELOOR DESOM, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. DELEEP KUMAR, S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN, GENERAL MANAGER, TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., IRINJALAKUDA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.C.S.HRITHIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1735 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of August 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner seeks further investigation into the case of alleged theft of electricity by the officials of a Co-operative Bank, under section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 3. Petitioner is a member of the Irinjalakuda Town Co- operative Bank. Case is that on 17-12-2007 the Anti Power Theft Squad attached to the electricity board made a surprise inspection in the premises of that bank and detected theft of electrical energy. Police registered crime No.47 of 2008 and investigated. Final report was filed against General Manager of the bank for offence punishable under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act. Petitioner would say that the Chairman and the members of the Director Board of the bank are also involved in the alleged theft which was not investigated by the police due to extraneous reasons. Learned magistrate found that circumstances did not warrant further investigation and dismissed the petition. Hence this revision. Learned counsel contends that under the provisions of bylaw of the bank, General Manager is only an agent of the Board of Directors required to act in accordance with the direction of that board. Hence, the offence could not be committed by the general manager alone without the knowledge of the members of Crl.R.P.No.1735 of 2009 2 the director board. 4. It is settled position of law that criminal liability cannot be fastened on a person based on the principle of agency or vicarious liability unless it is so specifically provided. Learned counsel was not able to point out any provision in the byelaw of the bank which says that for criminal act of General Manager, the members of the Board of Directors are liable. Therefore, that contention cannot be sustained. 5. It is true that the court has the power to direct further investigation under section 173(8) of the Code. But, no party has right as such to seek further investigation. A party can bring to the notice of the court that investigation was not proper and hence further investigation is required. Learned magistrate has referred to the circumstances to hold that further investigation is not required. I also bear in mind that it is well within the power of learned magistrate to order further investigation at any stage before pronouncing judgment and if evidence is brought before court to implead persons concerned as additional accused and proceed against them. On going through the order under challenge and hearing counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor I do not find any illegality or irregularity in order under challenge requiring interference. This revision petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/