AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The accused was tried, convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable u/s 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Therefore, he has filed this appeal. I have heard Sri. Y.S. Shivaprasad, learned counsel for appellant and learned State Public Prosecutor for the State.
It is the case of prosecution that accused was the registered consumer of installation bearing No. CP-7 through which he had taken power connection to his flourmill situate at Chikka Jambur village. The Department had received credible information that accused had tampered the terminal cover of meter to directly connect the main lines to the load wires and to prevent electric meter from recording consumption.
The prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W''s. 1 to 6, documents marked as per Ex. P1 to P10 and material objects as per MO''s. 1 to 3.
In view of conviction of accused for aforestated offence, the points that would arise for determination are:
1) Whether the prosecution has proved that sometime prior to 07.05.2002, the accused being the registered consumer of installation bearing No. CP-7 installed to his flourmill at Chikka Jambur village had directly connected the main lines to the load wires bypassing the meter fraudulently to prevent the meter from recording consumption?
2) Whether the learned trial judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record?
3) To what order?
At the relevant time, P.W. 1- Parashuramappa was working as an Assistant Engineer in MESCOM at Shiralakoppa. P.W. 1 has deposed; that on 07.05.2002, at about 3.00 p.m., he received telephonic message from P.W. 2-Venkatesh that theft of electricity is going on in the flourmill bearing installation No. CP-7 at Chikka Jambur village. P.W. 2 came to the office of P.W. 1. They visited jurisdictional police station (Shiralakoppa Police Station) and secured one constable and proceeded to the flour mill of accused in Chikka Jambur village. P.W. 2-Venkatesh examined the meter and found that the seal of terminal cover of meter was removed and load wires were directly connected to main wires and the meter was not recording consumption. They disconnected and removed the wires. P.W. 2-Venkatesh prepared a mahazar in the presence of P.W. 3-Munawar Beig and other witnesses and first information was lodged with the jurisdictional police station (Shiralakoppa Police Station). They seized incriminating articles viz., M.O. 1-Wire, M.O. 2- Meter and M.O. 3-Meter Board. P.W. 1 prepared back billing charges and compounding charges amounting to Rs. 1,16,959/- and notice was issued to the accused as per Ex. P2. The accused preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 35,480/- and accordingly he has deposited a sum of Rs. 35,480/- on 21.08.2002. Ex. P3 is the agreement executed by accused (as a registered consumer) in favour of the Board.
On careful consideration of evidence, I find that accused has not disputed that he was the registered consumer of installation bearing No. CP-7. The accused has not disputed that the raiding party had visited his flourmill and the terminal cover of the meter was open and there was direct connection of main wire to load wire.
P.W. 1 has deposed; that on examination, they found that meter cover was open; the wires were connected in such a way to prevent the meter from recording consumption of electricity; even when the flourmill was functioning, the meter was not recording consumption; three phase wires were installed in flourmill and a three phase meter was installed in the floor mill of accused. Out of three phases, one is called ''R'' Phase which was having red colour insulated wire; the other phase is called ''Y'' Phase which was having yellow colour insulated wire and another phase is called ''B'' Phase which was having blue colour insulated wire. The accused had connected main wires directly to the load wires to prevent the meter from recording consumption.
During cross-examination, the accused had made an unsuccessful attempt to establish that he had lodged a complaint in the month of November'' 2001 to the Department that his meter (installation bearing No. CP-7) is not working.
P.W. 1 has deposed; that on receipt of complaint, he had visited the flourmill of the accused and inspected the meter in the presence of accused and found that meter was properly recording consumption and accused had lodged a false complaint. The accused has denied his presence at the time of inspection however, P.W. 1 has asserted that accused was present when the meter was inspected and incriminating articles viz., viz., M.O. 1-Wire, M.O. 2-Meter and M.O. 3-Meter Board were seized under a mahazar.
At the relevant time, P.W. 2-Venkatesh was working as an Assistant Engineer in MESCOM. He was the head of "Pulikeshi Squad" which had been formed to detect the theft of electric energy.
P.W. 2 has deposed; that on 07.05.2002, at 12.30 p.m., (afternoon) he had gone to the flourmill of accused. The installation of flourmill was bearing No. CP-7. The flourmill was functioning however, the meter was not recording consumption of electric energy. He opened the terminal cover and found that seal of terminal cover was broken. The electricity was directly taken from the main wires by using four wires.
During cross-examination, nothing is elicited to discredit the evidence of P.W. 2. On the other hand, it has been elicited from P.W. 2 that screws of terminal cover can be removed by hands. There are no reasons to suspect evidence of P.W. 2.
u/s 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, when the registered consumer has used artificial means or means not authorized by the licensee for the abstraction, consumption or use of energy by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved that abstraction, consumption or use of energy has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.
In the case on hand, the accused has tampered the terminal cover of meter and connected main wire to the load wire to prevent the meter from recording consumption. Therefore, it has to be presumed that consumption or use of energy was dishonestly caused by the accused. The accused apart from denying the case of prosecution has not adduced evidence to rebut the presumption.
The learned trial judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held the accused guilty of an offence punishable u/s 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
The learned counsel for accused would submit that the accused is now aged about 68 years and he is suffering from Cancer. The learned counsel for accused has not produced documentary evidence in proof of the same however, he has produced certain documents relating to sanction of amount by the Government for treatment of the accused. Having regard to age and present condition of appellant, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence from two and half years to six months.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER
The appeal is accepted in part. The judgment of conviction of accused for an offence punishable u/s 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment is modified. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable u/s 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The fine imposed by the trial court is confirmed.
If accused has been suffering from any ailment, the jail authorities shall provide necessary treatment to accused.