HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1885 OF 2007 Dated 19-9-2014 Between:
Kanithi Anandarao and another.
..Petitioners.
And:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1885 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 6-2-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam whereunder judgment dated 19-4-2004 in C.C.No.294 of 2001 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali, Srikakulam District, is modified to the extent of sentence.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: Inspector of Police, Vigilance and A.P.T.S., A.P.Transco, Visakhapatnam filed charge sheet against petitioners herein alleging that they have a rice mil in Kanchuru of Nandigam Mandal and they have obtained electricity connection with service No.8 under Category No.3 and that on 14-5-1999 at about 12-30 P.M., P.W.1 surprised his rice mill and found that the meter box of the said service connection has only one seal and the seal was cut and opened and ‘R’ Phase wires were just inserted in “R” phase meter terminal box and its screws were found loose and that P.W.1 further observed that consumer reversed the “R”
Phase connection by breaking the meter box and its bottom seal and thereby, petitioners committed pilferage of energy and for that, they have to be tried for the offences under Sections 39 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act.
On these allegations, eight witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness was examined and no document was marked on behalf of revision petitioners.
On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioners guilty for the offence charged and sentenced them to suffer six months imprisonment each with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and aggrieved by which, they preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed the conviction but modified sentence and imposed fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offences under Sections 39 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act and set aside six months imprisonment. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioners submitted that courts below failed to see that prosecution failed in proving the offences alleged against the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that courts below failed to see that lineman was regularly visiting the premises and that he never noticed meddling with meter and therefore, allegations against petitioners are incorrect. It is also submitted that trial court and appellate court convicted the revision petitioners only on the basis of presumptions and assumptions and there is no pilferage committed by the revision petitioners.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that there is pilferage of energy and P.W.1, in fact, conducted test in the presence of accused and noticed meddling of meter and both the courts have rightly convicted revision petitioners and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
According to prosecution, both petitioners pilferaged energy and thereby, committed offences under Sections 39 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act. The main witnesses for prosecution are P.Ws.1 to 3 who are department people.
As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, on 14-5- 1999, while he along with others inspected premises of accused and he found “R” phase meter in reverse condition. He clearly stated in his evidence about the modus operandi under which energy was pilferaged. He further deposed that the meter seal and terminal covers are opened and energy is pilferaged. It was admitted in the cross-examination that lineman was visiting the premises every month regularly for noting down the meter readings and returning to this petitioners, contend if really there was meddled with meter, this lineman ought to have noticed it. But both trial court and appellate court have discarded this contention on the ground that from the material it is clear that after removal of seals, paper was pasted on the meter and therefore, it is not possible for the lineman to notice it. Further, as seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, this lineman is not a technical person and he may not have knowledge about the meddling with meter or pilfering energy by reverse method. Both trial court and appellate court have elaborately considered each and every objection raised on behalf of revision petitioners and in fact, the very same objections are raised before the courts below. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, there are no incorrect findings on any of the material aspects and both courts have concurrently held that it is a clear case of pilferage. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of courts below and the evidence on record would disclose that there is pilferage of energy which is on offences punishable under Sections 39 and 41 of the Act, therefore, convicting the petitioners for the said offences is absolutely correct.
For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the conviction and sentence.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 19-9-2014 Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1885 OF 2007 Dated 19-9-2014 Dvs