State vs Annamalai Cotton Mills Ltd.

Aruna Jagadeesan, J.—The State has preferred a criminal appeal against the acquittal of the accused by judgment dated 30.08.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Salem in C.C.No.143 of 2004 for the offence under sections 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The criminal revision has been filed by the Electricity Board against the acquittal of the accused by the judgment dated 30.08.2007 made in C.C.No.143 of 2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Salem.

The appeal and the revision arise out of judgment of acquittal dated 30.8.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salem, both are heard together and a common judgment is passed.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.05.1995 at 4.00 a.m. when the officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Salem and the Anti Power Theft Squad and Meter relay test authorities inspected the the High Tension Service connection No.30 of M/s. Annamalai cotton Mills Private Limited, Gajjalmaickenpatti, Salem, it was found that the metering set installed in the mill at the Tamil Nadu electricity Board supply point was bye passed using two copper bit wires thereby prevented the meter from registering the actual power consumption, when the mill was running with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Electric supply. During the course of investigation, it was detected that two copper bit wires were found inserted on the R & B Phase incoming and outgoing jumpers of the metering set for diverting the power supply direct to the mill without going through the current transformer of the metering set by way of short circuit and thus, illegally abstracted and consumed energy. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 7 have tampered the metering set, dishonestly abstracted and fraudulently consumed electrical energy in the said service connection No. 30 causing loss to the tune of Rs. 9,43,87,324/- to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, by adopting artificial means. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are Managing Directors of A1 Mills, accused Nos.4 and 5 are the Directors of Mill and Accused Nos. 6 and 7 are the Manager and electrician of the said Mill. Thus, accused 1 to 7 have committed the offence of theft of electrical energy, punishable under sections 39(1) and 44(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

After analysing the evidence placed on record, the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and no reliance could be placed on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court referred to number of circumstances creating doubt on the credibility of the prosecution story and thus, passed the judgment of acquittal. As against the judgment of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed both by the State in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2010 and by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in Criminal Revision Case No. 1678/2007.

In an appeal against acquittal, we are required to see whether the view taken by the learned trial Judge is plausible and the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence and whether the view held by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Salem, was a probable view.

It is now well settled in a catena of decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court that in an appeal against acquittal certain cardinal rules are required to be kept in mind, namely, (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court. (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal. (iii) Though, the power of the appellant Court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial Court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate Court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial Court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court interfering with such conclusions is fully justified. (iv) merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.

Before reference is made to the evidence produced by the prosecution, reference is required to be made to certain suspicious features which throw doubt on the bonafide of the investigation and consequently which throw doubt on the case of the prosecution being established beyond reasonable doubt. P.W. 16 Ganesan, Sub Inspector of Police had registered the case in Ex. P14 F.I.R. and took up investigation even on 11.05.1995. It is the version of P.W.16 that he was in charge of the investigation till he handed it over to P.W.17 Jayachandran, Inspector of Police as per the order of Superintendent of Police, Salem. Till then, according to P.W.16, he alone conducted the investigation and that P.W.17 Inspector of Police was not in the picture. It is also affirmed by P.W.17, in his evidence. The order of the Superintendent of Police was marked as Ex.P16 and it is dated 09.06.1995. However, the Superintendent of Police who issued the order has not been examined. The version of P.W.16 that he was investigating the case till 09.06.1995 is falsified by P.W.13, Ramasamy, Village Administrative Officer who has clearly stated that even on 11.05.1995, P.W.17 Inspector of Police, came to the Mill of A1 and was there. Therefore, P.W.17 could not have done any investigation muchless recording of any statement contrary to what had been recorded by P.W.16. This only shows that P.W.17 Inspector of Police was already at the realm of affairs of the investigation and that he had kept his superior officers in the dark. The order of the Superintendent of Police, Ex.P16 rather points out that in order to do speedy and efficient investigation, the investigation has been handed over to Mr.Jayachandrasn, Inspector of Police. The order clearly indicated that there was no efficient investigation done till 09.06.1995.

On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.17, it appears that he has sent a requisition to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Commercial Tax Officer, Salem, Rural Assessment Circle and Registrar of Factories marked as Exs.P17 and P19 requiring the said authorities to produce the monthly production report and sales record particulars of M/s. Annamalai Cotton Mills. There is no material to indicate whether he has received the said particulars as required by him. Therefore, these documents do not have probative value. The evidence of P.W.14 Rajaganapathy, P.W.15 Janarthanam, the employees of Annamalai Cotton Mills are of no use as they have turned hostile. Similarly the evidence of P.W.8 Naliannan is also of no avail to the prosecution as his evidence is more general and based on assumption. The evidence of P.W.9 is similarly of no use.

According to P.W.9, he had prepared the working sheet but the said working sheet has not been marked. He has stated in his evidence that he cannot say where exactly the said original working sheet was prepared by him. In the absence of working sheet which is a contemporaneous document his the oral evidence cannot be accepted. P.W.9 further stated that P.W.5 Jaganjothi who served as Superintendent Engineer in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had given him certain datas whereas the evidence of P.W.5 did not support his statement. Similarly, P.W.9 has stated that P.W.1 Mariappan had supplied him some data. This is not spoken to by P.W.1. Therefore, P.W.9''s evidence cannot be relied upon. It is relevant to note that P.W.9 says that he was not examined by the police. In the evidence of P.W.10, the Executive Engineer, he has stated that he received a letter Ex.P11 from the Inspector of Police with some annexures carrying certain data. He had stated that he prepared the working sheet based on the figures furnished in the annexure. It is important to note that those annexures are not mentioned. There is no material to indicate that those annexures carry genuine figures or entries. The chances of police officer providing wrong data cannot be ruled out in fact, P.W.10 had admitted that he cannot guarantee that the datas furnished to him by police are true or not.

P.W.11 Rangasamy has only stated that he inspected and examined the instrument that were sent to him and finally, he prepared the note Ex.P12 detailing therein several aspects. However, he has not stated beyond that. It appears that he had not asked to examine and test as to whether the meters were in working condition or not. His evidence does not advance the case of the prosecution.

The prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.13 Ramasamy,Village Administrative Officer of Gajjalnaicken Patti. On being summoned by the police, he went to the Mill of A1 and was present when the police conducted their investigation. He has categorically stated that P.W.17 came there and conducted investigation. This fact has been denied by both P.W.16 and 17. P.W.13''s evidence further indicated that he has reached the Mill of A1 even before the arrival of P.W.16 Sub-Inspector of Police. What necessitated him to visit the Mill even before the arrival of the Investigation Officer is unexplained and reasonable doubt arises with regard to his conduct. On a scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, each one of them is contradictory to each other and the trial Court has meticulously scrutinised the said evidence and has found that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 are not reliable. The prosecution placed reliance heavily on the evidence of P.W.12 Ravi who is said to have taken photograph at the scene of occurrence at the request of the Police.

It is pertinent to point out that he was cited as an additional witness on the ground that one Krishnamurthy who has taken photographs died and P.W.12 Ravi had worked in the photo studio of Krishnamurthy as his assistance. P.W.12 has categorically admitted in his cross examination that he was not present when M.Os.8 and 9 photographs were taken He has further stated that he was not examined by the Police. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W.12. On analysis of the entire evidence placed on record, the trial Court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the existence of artificial means of abstracting energy and therefore, the presumption of section 39(1) of the Indian Electricity Act cannot be raised in this case. He has discussed the evidence elaborately and arrived at the said finding which in my view cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference of this Court.

At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another, while dealing with the scope and extent of revisional jurisdiction of the High court invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal held that the revisional power should not be exercised by the High Court unless there exists a manifest illegality in the judgment of acquittal or there is grave miscarriage of justice. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that there was any glaring defect in the procedure adopted by the trial court or that there was a manifest error on a point of law in the judgment which had resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. A scrutiny of the evidence shows that there is not even any misappreciation of the evidence on the record by the trial court resulted in gross failure of justice warranting interference by this Court.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in my view the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Salem, is justified in giving the benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused from the offence under sections 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. There is no merits in the appeal and in the revision and the same are liable to be dismissed.

In the result, both criminal appeal as well as the criminal revision case are dismissed.