Criminal Appeal No. 1221 of 2012 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20636 CRL.A No. 1221 of 2012 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1221 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: KUMAR S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT KOWDLE VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 429 (BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY .P., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHESCOM VIGILANCE MANDYA - 571 429 (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP) …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AND FINE PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY THE ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN SPL. C.C. NO.42/2009 DATED 21/9/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 135(1)(B) & 138(1)(B) OF ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003. AND ETC., THIS CRL.A, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20636 CRL.A No. 1221 of 2012 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being accused in Spl.C.No.42/2009 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2021, convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(b) and 138(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,70,311/-, for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(b) of the Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 138(1)(b) of the Act, with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution are that, PW-1 being the Assistant Executive Engineer, CHESCOM visited the installation run by the accused bearing meter No.MP264, where the flour mill was being run and found that he had not paid the electricity bill charges. On inspection of the meter and the installation, he found that there was tampering of the meter. It was found that the wires - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20636 CRL.A No. 1221 of 2012 HC-KAR connecting R & B phase with main wire and road side wire were interchanged and thereby, committing theft of electricity. On seeing the tampering of meter and committing theft of
Legal Reasoning
electricity, PW-1 filed the first information as per Ex.P1, conducted a spot mahazar, seized the wire and the meter as MOs1 and 2, drawn the spot mahazar as per Ex.P3 and recorded statements of PWs-2 to 4. 3. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the above said offences. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PWs-1 to 9, got marked Exs.P1 to 11 and identified MOs 1 and 2 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but had not led any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20636 CRL.A No. 1221 of 2012 HC-KAR proceeded to convict and sentence the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Smt. Archana Murthy.P, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials 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: "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 is in Negative' and pass the following: REASONS 6. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that, the accused was running a flour mill and had taken electricity connection through the meter. He was not regular in paying the electricity charges. When PW-1 visited the installation, he found - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20636 CRL.A No. 1221 of 2012 HC-KAR that the wire connected to the meter were interchanged and thereby, tampered the meter preventing it from recording the correct consumption of electricity. 7. PW-1, who deposed before the Court in support of the contention of prosecution, had filed the first information as per Ex.P1. He has also drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P3, where-under the wires used for tampering the meter and electricity meter were seized. 8. PW-2 is the CHESCOM vigilance line man, who specifically deposed before the Court that, even though the flour mill was working, consumption of electricity were not being recorded in the meter. The meter was stopped, when PW-1 visited the installation and verified the same. Both PWs-1 and 2 deposed as to how the meter was tampered by the accused. Even though these witnesses were cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve their version except denying the evidence given by the accused. 9. PWs-3 and 4 are the independent witnesses, who were present at the time of spot mahazar. Both these witnesses - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20636 CRL.A No. 1221 of 2012 HC-KAR have not supported the case of prosecution and no importance could be attached to their evidence. 10. PW-5 is the Assistant Engineer, who prepared the document as per Ex.P5. Witness stated that the back billing charges along with compounding charges amounts to Rs.1,71,437/-. Nothing has been elicited from this witness as well to disbelieve his version. 11. PW-6 is the Assistant Executive Engineer, who examined the meter and issued the report as per Ex.P6. The evidence of this witness is self explanatory as to how the meter was tampered by the accused. There is no effective cross- examination except suggesting denial. 12. PW-7 is the Inspector attached to vigilance of CHESCOM who also speaks about the meter installed in the installation where the accused was running the flour mill and speaks about its tampering. Again nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version. 13. PW-8 is the police inspector who received the first information from PW-1 as per Ex.P1 and registered the FIR. PW- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20636 CRL.A No. 1221 of 2012 HC-KAR 9 is the Assistant Executive Engineer, who speaks about back billing and compounding charges imposed on the accused as per Exs.P10 and 11. 14. Even though PWs-1, 2, 5 to 9 are the official witnesses, no motive or ill-will was suggested against them. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of any of these official witnesses or to ignore or to disbelieve any of the documents that are relied on by the prosecution. 15. At the earliest point of time, PW-1 - the responsible Assistant Executive Engineer attached to CHESCOM, lodged the first information with the diagram as per Ex.P2. Ex.P3 is the mahazar drawn at the spot. Ex.P5 is the back bill issued by CHESCOM. Ex.P6 is the inspection report of the meter, which confirms tampering of the meter. Ex.P7 is the FIR, Ex.P8 is the report - occupation certificate issued by the Secretary of Gram Panchayath to confirm that it is the accused who was running the flour mill. Ex.P9 is the endorsement given by the Gram Panchayath. Ex.P10 is the statement of billing regarding the installation owned by the accused. Ex.P11 is the application form submitted to provide electricity connection for installation. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20636 CRL.A No. 1221 of 2012 HC-KAR 16. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record fully substantiate the contention taken by the prosecution and thus, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has not stepped into the witness box to depose about his defence nor he suggested any specific defence to any of the prosecution witnesses. Under such circumstances, the accused is liable for conviction. 17. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence and proceeded to convict and sentence the accused as stated above. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The criminal appeal is dismissed. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment to the Trial Court for information and to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:20636 CRL.A No. 1221 of 2012 HC-KAR secure the presence of the accused to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued. In view of disposal of main matter, pending IA No.1 of 2025 stands disposed off. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16