AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against the judgment of First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam in Criminal case No. 297 of 1993 dated 17-4-1995 wherein the respondents have been acquitted of the offence u/s 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and Sections 379, 472 and 473 of Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 23-9-93 P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 raided the shop of the respondents namely Lahari Wine Centre situated in Suryapet road, Nayabazar, Khammam and detected that meter seals on the meter cover were replaced and the seals found were counterfeit and the consumption recorded by the meter was very low and not commensurate with the connected load of 1035 Watt. They seized the seals M.O.1 and M.O.2 and inspection report was prepared which was signed by the 2nd respondent. The loss was assessed at Rs. 19,472.80 ps. and a case was registered under the aforesaid Sections and the respondents were prosecuted for the said offence.
Charge u/s 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and u/s 370, 472 and 473 I.P.C. were framed against the respondents who denied their guilt.
The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 who has testified that at the time of inspection 2nd respondent was present in his Lahari Wine shop. He has further stated that the meter had two seal bits Nos. 838958 with the impression APSEB MRT, II KHM on one side and APSEB MRT, II Khammam on the other side and the second bit No. 838905 with impression MRT II KHM on one side and MR/KHM on the other side. He and his raiding party suspected that the bits were bogus. They got the meter tested on 24-11-1984 and found that the seal bits provided to the meter body were 411512 and 411513 with impression APSEB MRTS KMM on both the sides. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have corroborated the say in the above statement. P.W.4 has stated on oath that he had verified from the records on the request of P.W.1 the details about meter No. 334173 and issued a certificate Ex.P.3 which is the meter test certificate.
The lower Court has drawn adverse inference against the prosecution because no independent witnesses were taken with P.W.1 at the time of inspection and seizure of the seals. The lower Court disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 on the ground that they had not seen the MRT records before reaching the conclusion that the seals were counterfeit. The original records were not produced in the Court. On these grounds the trial Court has acquitted the respondents.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal the State has preferred this appeal.
I get from the evidence of P.W.4 that he had inspected the record of the meter No. 334173 and had issued a meter test certificate which is at Ex.P.3, but, on perusal of the certificate issued by P.W.4, which certificate is at Ex.P.3 shows that the meter number is 1114173, P.W.1 has stated that the meter number in question was 1114173. Thus, there appears to be mutual contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and PW4. Over and above all, from the evidence of PW4 it appears that some other meter was inspected and report has been given relating to the meter No. 1114173. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the certificate Ex.P.3. The prosecution has not taken any independent witness at the tune of raid and seizure.
There is no evidence on record to hold that respondent No. 1 was the tenant of the respondent No.3 at the relevant time because no lease deed has been filed. The case of the prosecution is that the 3rd respondent had leased the accommodation in question to others and therefore it cannot be definitely said that the meter was in possession of the 3rd respondent and therefore she cannot be charged for the offence complained on. That, the 2nd respondent was present at the relevant time, but he appears to be an employee of Lahari Wine centre shop and therefore it is difficult to hold the employee guilty for the theft of electricity. The prosecution has failed to establish by reliable evidence that the respondents are liable for replacing the original meter seals. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated about the units utilised in the said shop, but P.W.1 has simply marked in his inspection report. He has not proved the contents of this report.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of acquittal cannot be faulted with and I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower Court.
In result, the appeal against acquittal fails and the same is dismissed.