State of Karnataka vs Basavaraj Balappa Badawadagi

Dr. Jawad Rahim, J.—The appeal is by the State u/s 378 of Cr.P.C. questioning the acquittal of the respondent as recorded by the Additional J.M.F.C., Gokak, in C.C. No. 1478/2007 for an offence punishable u/s 379 of I.P.C. In support of the appeal against the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the nature of allegation which reveals that the Section Officer of Yadwad-Hubli Electricity Distribution Board, lodged a report that, on 13.06.2007, he received a message regarding theft of a Transformer installed in the land of one Krishnappa B. Aralimatti situate in Thimmapur Village. He found that the said Transformer was stolen by some miscreants on 12.06.2007 between 02.30 p.m. and 3.20 p.m. On the basis of the report submitted, investigation commenced and they found the transformer of 25 KVA with the make of STAR P.O. No. 11150, SC No. 200003004, manufactured in 2000, valued at Rs. 45,000/-, was stolen. The report was actually submitted by him to the police on 28.06.2007 and during investigation, the respondent was arrested. He pleaded not guilty of the charge for an offence punishable u/s 379 of I.P.C. In view of the denial of charge, trial ensued, in which prosecution examined in all ten witnesses and relied on eight documents and one material object.

The learned trial judge analysing the evidence opined, the prosecution evidence could not bring any incriminating aspect establishing the charge of theft against the respondent for an offence punishable u/s 379 of I.P.C. and acquitted him. Assailing the said judgment and finding of the trial court, this appeal is filed.

The only/ground urged by the learned Addl. SPP is that the leaned J.M.F.C., Gokak, did not have jurisdiction to subject the respondent to trial for an offence of theft of Transformer belonging to the Electricity Department which is punishable u/s 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short �the Act''). He submits that as the subject matter of theft is a Transformer--the property of the Electricity Board, theft of such a property comes within the mischief of Section 136 of the Act.

To try a person for any of the offences punishable under Sections 135 to 140 of the Act, a special Court has been constituted by virtue of Section 153 of the Act. He submits that the Notification in this regard has been issued by the Government constituting Special Courts to be presided over by a Judge of the rank not less than Additional District Judge. He submits, in view of the constitution of such. Courts, J.M.F.C., who is in the lowest tier of criminal court, was not competent, as it was not constituted u/s 153 of the Act.

To support his contention, he refers to the Notification issued by the Government constituting the Special Courts with effect from 2007. According to him, the crime in question is committed on 12.06.2007, which is after the incorporation of Section 153 in Chapter XV of the Act. This ground seemingly is attractive, but is worthy of rejection for the reason, the respondent has not been charged for any of the offences punishable under the provisions of Electricity Act. A charge-sheet has been filed for an offence punishable u/s 379 of I.P.C., which carries punishment if the accused is proved guilty up to a period of three years, which is in the legal competence of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Therefore, the Special Court constituted under the provisions of Electricity Act did not have competence to try a person for an offence punishable u/s 379 of I.P.C., which was the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Since, there is no charge raised against the respondent for any of the offences punishable under Sections 135 to 140 of the Act, there is no question of Special Court trying him.

In the circumstances, the ground urged in the appeal against the acquittal is wholly misconceived and untenable. The ground is rejected and consequently the appeal. The judgment of the trial court is confirmed.