Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 23

Four years after former Engineer-in-Chief VK Mahendru was convicted by the trial court along with others in a 23-year-old power theft case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed his conviction.

Mahendru was on deputation as an Executive Engineer with the UT Electricity Department when a complaint was received alleging that the Director of Bhushan Industrial Corporation, Brij Bhushan Singhal, had manipulated the posting of an Assistant Executive Engineer to indulge in electricity theft for his industries during peak load hours.

The appellant was convicted with other accused on September 2, 2016, before being sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. His counsel Manu K Bhandari argued that an appeal filed in the matter by Mahendru was admitted and his sentence was ordered to be stayed on October 5, 2016.

Appearing before Justice Ritu Bahri’s Bench through videoconferencing, Bhandari submitted that the applicant’s age was 75 and his wife was more than 72. He had no other source of income except the pension, which had now been reduced from Rs88,000 to Rs44,000.

Taking up the matter, Justice Bahri asserted: “The applicant is a senior citizen. If at the time of the final decision of the appeal, it is held that the alleged offence has not been committed by the applicant, an irreparable loss would be caused to him. It is not the case of the CBI that any recovery order has been passed against the UT Administration or any recovery has been affected for theft of electricity”.

Justice Bahri also referred to a case filed in 1999 by the HVPN against the Union of India and others. The nigam was seeking a direction for payment of more than Rs19 crore required to be made good principally by the UT and the Bhakra Beas Management Board for pilferage of electricity.

Justice Bahri asserted that it was held that action could not follow without making persons primarily responsible for the theft a party to the litigation. The principle of filing a suit merely against a master for a wrong committed by a servant could be adopted for criminal wrongs.

Before parting with the case, Justice Bahri asserted that applying the ruling and keeping in view the applicant’s age, the application was allowed and his conviction was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.