Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2012 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22628 CRL.A No. 190 of 2012 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: SRI. MOHD MUSTAFA, S/O ABDUL SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A MODI ROAD, DEVERA JEEVANAHALLI BANGALORE FACTORY ADDRESS STATED BY COMPLAINANT: K.H. ENTERPRISES, OPP RAJDHANI PIPE INDUSTRY, THANISANDRA, BANGALORE - 45 (BY SRI. M.M. ASHOKA, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BESCOM VIGILANCE, INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY. …APPELLANT Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:24.1.12 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. C.C. AND S.S.JUDGE, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.460/02 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 39 AND 44 OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 R/W SEC. 379 OF IPC AND ETC., THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22628 CRL.A No. 190 of 2012 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being the accused in Spl.CC.No.460 of 2002 on the file of the learned X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.01.2012, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short, 'the I.E Act') read with Section 379 of IPC, sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 39 of the I.E Act, and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 44 of I.E. Act, with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the accused being the Registered Consumer of Electricity, tampered with the meter and committed theft of electricity and thereby committed the above said offences. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22628 CRL.A No. 190 of 2012 HC-KAR 3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7, got marked Exhibits P1 to 16 and identified MO.1 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration the materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the I.E Act read with Section 379 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court. 4. Heard Sri. M.M.Ashoka, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional S.P.P for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22628 CRL.A No. 190 of 2012 HC-KAR "Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?" My answer to the above point in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS 6. Even though the appellant has raised several grounds in the memorandum of appeal impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, at the time of addressing his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments only on the point that the appellant is disputing quantum of compounding charges levied at Rs.3,00,000/- by the BESCOM (Vigilance). He contended that the date of offence is 03.05.2002. The Karnataka Electricity Amendment Act came into effect in the year 2003. The compounding charges was calculated on the basis of amended provision which was not in force as on the date of commission of the offence. Hence, he prays for allowing of the appeal. 7. Learned counsel Sri. P. Prasannakumar, who assisted the court on behalf of Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE), - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22628 CRL.A No. 190 of 2012 HC-KAR BESCOM against whom, NBW was issued, produced the table for computing the amount applicable for imposing compounding charges along with the notice dated 07.06.2024 issued by AEE (Vigilance), BESCOM, Sub-Division, Nagawara, Bengaluru to the appellant calling upon him to pay the compounding charges of Rs.3,00,000/-. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that compounding charges calculated at Rs.3,00,000/- by the AEE (Vigilance) is just and proper by applying the provision of law as it stood on the date of commission of offence and he prays for time to pay the compounding charges to the Department, in accordance with law. 9. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal to seek interference of this Court to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, I do not find any reason to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22628 CRL.A No. 190 of 2012 HC-KAR (ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Spl.C.C.No.460/2002 by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-26), is hereby confirmed. (iii) The appellant is directed to pay the compounding charges as calculated by the BESCOM, in accordance with law, within six weeks from today. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment to the Trial Court for information and needful action. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17