1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4824 OF 2009 1. Harilal Chainrai Kataria 2. Jagdish Jethnand Vasvani 3. Roopkumar Bhagwandas Jadhavani ....Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ----- Mr.H.S. Venegavkar for Applicants Mr.J.P. Kharge  APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 7TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with an offence which is registered with Medha Police Station, Dist. Satara vide C.R. No.5 of 2009 for the offence punishable under sections 135 and 138 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 3. According to the Complaint, the officers of the MSEB tested the Consumer meter in the presence of the firm's representative and according to the 1 Complainant, the said meter was tampered and, therefore, the meter was sent to L & T Company and after inspection they had given a report that the meter was tampered by inserting two additional electronic circuit and additional resistance and, therefore, meter reading was incorrect. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants submitted that they are licencees of the said property and in 2009 an agreement was executed between M/s. Suman Motels, who are the original owners of the said property and there was dispute between the Applicants and the original owners. A civil suit was filed by the landlord against the Applicants. It is submitted that landlord had appointed a care taker. The learned Counsel for the Applicants has invited my attention to the letter of appointment dated 1.1.2009. He submitted that the said care taker checked the cottage and carried out repaires etc. It is, therefore submitted that, if at all, the said meter was tampered, it is not the Applicants, but the care taker of the landlord, who is reponsible for the said tampering. The MSEB has issued a bill, in which they had claimed Rs.5,44,051/- as penalty. The Applicants have already deposited the said amount without prejudice to their rights and contentions and as of today no dues are payable to the said MSEB. 1 5. Taking into consideration the fact that there is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant and the care taker of the landlord was in possession of the premises and was under an obligation to look after the maintenance of the cottage, at this stage, it is difficult to say as to who are actually responsible. In any case, the Applicants have already deposited the said amount and, therefore, in my view, futher custodial interrogation of the Applicants is not necessary. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged against the present Applicants, since immediately within 8 days after the said complaint was lodged, the landlord has filed civil suit in the Civil Court. 6. Under these circumstances the Applicants, in the event of their arrest in connection with C.R. No. 5/2009 registered with Medha Police Station, Dist. Satara for the offence punishable under sections 135 and 138 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one or two sureties each in the like amount. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE- J.)