THE HONOURABLE MR v. Vaiyathrasu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 10.07.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.A.No.763 of 1998andCrl.R.C.No.991 of 1998In Crl.A.No.763/1998State byThe Sub-Inspector of Police,Arcot Town, rep. ByPublic Prosecutor,High Court, Madras .. Appellant/Complainantvs.Vaiyathrasu .. Respondent/AccusedIn Crl.R.C.No.991 of 1998Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Rep. By its Assistant Executive Engineer,Arcot-632 503. .. Petitioner/PW1Vs.1.Vaiyathu Arusu2.State by The Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station. .. Respondents/AccusedPrayer:- This Appeal and Revision have been preferred against the judgmentdated 8.6.1998 in C.C.No.274 of 1991 on the file of the learned DistrictMunsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Arcot.In Crl.A.No.763 of 1998For Appellant : Mr.V.R.BalasubramanianAdditional Public ProsecutorFor Respondent : No appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In Crl.R.C.No.991 of 1998For Petitioner :Mr.N.MuthuswamiFor Respondents :Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian Additional Public ProsecutorCOMMON JUDGMENTThis appeal arises out of the judgment in C.C.No.274 of 1991 on thefile of the Judicial Magistrate, Arcot. This is against the order ofacquittal. 2.According to the prosecution, on 19.4.1991 at about 5.00 pm whenthe officials of the Electricity Department had conducted inspection ofthe service connection No.2457 in Door No.22/A in Yogalingam street, theaccused tampered with the meter thereby causing a loss of Rs.86,950/- tothe Electricity Department thereby committing an offence under Section 29of the Indian Electricity Act. The accused has also been charged undersection 44(e) of the Indian Electricity Act for causing damage to the MRTseal in the meter by means of artificial fire thereby committing theft ofelectricity.3.After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned JudicialMagistrate issued summons to the accused and on his appearance copiesunder Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and when thecharges were explained to the accused and questioned the accused pleadednot guilty. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.3 to P.W.9 were examinedand Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 were exhibited and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked. 4.P.W.1 is the Assistant Executive Engineer of Electricity Board.According to him, while he was working as an Assistant Engineer during therelevant point of time, P.W.4-Ruthran came to the office on 19.4.1991 atabout 1.00 am and preferred a complaint that there was a fire in serviceconnection No.2457 and immediately P.W.3-lineman rushed to the place offire. After disconnecting the electricity supply to the serviceconnection No.2457 and after noting the damages caused to the meter, hehad informed the Assistant Engineer Thiru.G.Krishnamoorthy(P.W.2) on thefollowing morning. P.W.2-Krishnamoorthy visited the place of occurrenceat about 10.00 am. Ex.P.1 is the complaint preferred by P.W.1. Accordingto P.W.1, the fire was not an accidental one. The place of accident wasagain inspected by him on 20.4.1991 at about 10.00 am in the presence ofthe accused. Finding some discrepancies in the meter reading, he gaveEx.P.1-complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, crime branch, ArcotPolice station and that the Sub-Inspector of Police inspected the place ofoccurrence at about 5.00 pm on the same day and seized the damaged meter,fuse carrier and burnt meter board. He would suggest that if the fire is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an accidental one then there is no possibility for the meter to falldirectly from the meter board. He would depose that the serviceconnection was in the name of Yogalingam and that the accused got theconnection after the death of one Sambasiva Chetiar under partition.According to him, due to the tampering of the meter the loss occurred tothe electricity board comes to Rs.1,26,972/-. Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4 are theelectricity consumption card in the name of Yogalingam. He has identifiedM.O.1 as the meter and M.O.2(series) are the three fuse carries and M.O.3is the meter board, seized by the police from the place of occurrence.5. P.W.2 is the then Junior Engineer of Arcot during the relevantperiod. He has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. He had visited theplace of occurrence at about 10.00 am on 20.4.1991. Ex.P.5 is thestatement recorded by him from the accused Vaiyatharasu. He would deposethat at the time of inspection of the meter at about 4.00 pm, the accusedwas not present there.6. P.W.3-Sankaran is a lineman by profession, who was on night dutyon 19.4.1991. According to him, as per the instructions received from hishigher officials he has disconnected the electricity connection to serviceconnection No.2457 at 1.00 am on 19.4.1991 and visited the place ofoccurrence along with the engineer and found the burnt meter board andthat the police seized the material objects like meter board, fuse carrieretc.7. P.W.4 would depose that at about 1.00 am on 19.4.1991 he sawflames of fire emanating from the rice mill and he immediately went andinformed the lineman. But subsequently since he has not supported thecase of the prosecution he was treated as hostile witness.8.P.W.5 also followed the suit of P.W.4.9.P.W.6 is the VAO, who has given Ex.P.8-certificate to show that therice mill belongs to the accused. He is a witness in Ex.P.6-observationmahazar and Ex.P.7-recovery mahazar.10.P.W.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who has registered the casein Cr.No.168 of 1991 of Arcot Police Station under Section 3a(1) and 41(1)c of the Indian Electricity Act. Ex.P.9 is the copy of the FIR. The casewas registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1. He hasvisited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.6-observation mahazarand had drawn Ex.P.10-rough sketch. The material objects seized from theplace of occurrence were sent to the Court under Ex.P.11-form 95. He hasarrested the accused on 20.4.1991 at about 9.00 pm and produced him beforethe Judicial Magistrate for judicial custody. After completing theformalities, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused on29.11.1991. Ex.P.12 is the chemical analyst's report received from theForensic Science Laboratory in respect of the material objects seized andsent for chemical examination. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused underSection 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused would deny his complicity with thecrime. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary let inbefore the trial Court, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusionthat the charges levelled against the accused has not been proved beyondany reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused from all thecharges levelled against him. Aggrieved by the findings of the learnedtrial judge, the State has preferred this appeal and ElectricityDepartment has preferred this revision.12. Now the point for determination in this case is whether thefindings of the trial Court is perverse in nature to warrant anyinterference from this Court?13.The Point:- One of the grounds under which the learned trial Judgehas acquitted the accused is that the prosecution has failed to prove thatthe accused is the owner of the electricity service connection No.2457,which was sanctioned for a rice mill. The prosecution relies on Ex.P.8-certificate issued by P.W.6-VAO to show that the accused is the owner ofthe rice mill to which service connection No.2457 has been assigned. Aperusal of Ex.P.8-certificate will go to show that the service connectionNo.2457 belongs to late P.T.Yogalingam Chettiar and the accused is alessee for the rice mill in Door No.22/A to which electricity serviceconnection No.2457 has been assigned. To show that the accused is alessee of the rice mill in door No.22/A wherein the electricity serviceconnection NO.2457 has been allotted to, the prosecution has not adducedany documentary evidence like lease deed. According to P.W.1 one Ruthranhas noticed the fire in the said rice mill, who in turn had informed thesame to the junior engineer on 19.4.1991 at about 1.00 pm. But P.W.4-Ruthran has not supported the case of the prosecution and hence thelearned Assistant public Prosecutor has treated him as hostile witness.According to P.W.4, even though he was treated as hostile witness, hadseen the fire in the rice mill at about 1.00 am on 19.4.1991 and hadinformed the lineman. But according to P.W.3-lineman both P.W.4 and theaccused came to the office on 19.4.1991 at 1.00 am and informed about thefire in the rice mill. The case of the prosecution that the damage causedto the meter for the service connection No.2457 in the rice mill was notdue to an accidental fire but the accused in order to screen the offenceof theft of the electricity had purposely caused fire to the electricitymeter board service connection No.2457 in the rice mill. The materialobjects seized from the place of occurrence have been sent to the ForensicScience Laboratory for chemical examination and the chemical examinationreports have been marked as Ex.P.12 & Ex.P.13. P.W.9 is the author ofEx.P.13-report. P.W.9 in his evidence has deposed that since the burntmeter board was not sent for chemical analysis, he could not give anyfinal opinion to the fact whether the fire is an accidental or artificialone. The evidence of P.W.9 and his report Ex.P.13 cuts at the root ofthe case of the prosecution that the fire in the rice mill having service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ connection No.2457 is an artificial fire caused by the accused. Relyingon the evidence of P.W.1 as to his ignorance regarding form-7 intendedfor the service connection No.2457, to show when actually the meter andthe wire were fixed for service connection No.2457, the learned trialjudge has observed in her judgment that the prosecution has failed toprove whether the fire broken out in the meter is an accidental fire or anartificial fire. Further there is no test report for the meter was alsofiled to show when the meter was fixed for service connection No.2457 torule out the possibility of any short circuit accidental fire in serviceconnection No.2457. So under such circumstance, I do not find anyperverseness in the findings of the learned trial judge to warrant anyinterference from this Court. Point is answered accordingly.14. In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the findings of thelearned trial judge in C.C.No.274 of 1991 on the file the JudicialMagistrate, Vellore. Consequently, the revision petition preferred byP.W.1 is also dismissed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarssvTo,1.The District-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, Vellore.2.-do-The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.4.The Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station.1 cc To Mr.G.Rangarajan, Advocate, SR.41390.1 cc To Mr.N.Muthuswamy, Advocate, SR.41704.Crl.A.No.763 of 1998 and Crl.R.C.No.991 of 1998 SGL(CO)RVL 20.07.2007