THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.124 of 2009 12-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Kuram Bhoomaiah AND …..Appellant/accused State of Andhra Pradesh by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.124 of 2009 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the Judgment, dated 28.01.2009, in APTS CC No.2 of 2004 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, whereby the learned Judge found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 135 read with Section 138 of the Electricity Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
That on 29.01.2001 at 1615 hours, P.Ws.1 and 2 inspected the premises of T.Ganesh Rice Mill, S.C.No.69/Cat-III and that the owner of the rice mill was not present and the said rice mill was leased out to the accused, who is a lessee. P.W.1 found that all the seals were in tampered condition and the meter is found not working in middle phase. Further, P.W.1 observed that carbon was formed at Y-Phase cable potential tapping point by which supply is not going to meter in that phase. Hence, back-billing case is booked for meter was not working in one phase and a pilferage of energy case is booked for tampering the meter cover seals. Basing on the report of the P.W.1, P.W.7 registered a case against the accused and after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet.
To prove the guilt of the accused, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 and M.O.1 was marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Ex.D.1. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 135 read with Section 138 of the Electricity Act and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
After evaluating and examining the material available on record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that there are no special or adequate reasons, warranting interference by this Court with the Judgment passed by the trial Court.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence, and submits that as the appellant/accused is the only breadwinner in his family and has to lookafter his wife and children, lenient view may be taken by this Court while imposing sentence of imprisonment.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the nature of offence, and also in view of long lapse of time, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view.
In the result, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 135 read with Section 138 of the Electricity Act is hereby confirmed. However, this Court, taking a lenient view, modifies and reduces the sentence of imprisonment to the period, which the appellant/accused has already undergone. The sentence of fine and default condition, imposed by the Court below, is not interfered with.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 12.12.2014 pln