THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2614 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellants 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 were convicted by the lower Court under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 379 of IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each. Questioning the same, A-1 and A-2 filed this appeal. It is alleged that A-1 and A-2 were running sand filter unit in S.No.208 of Pocharam village by un-authorizedly tapping electricity from live wire. Plea of A-1 and A-2 is one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found both of them guilty of the above offence. The offence was detected by PW-1 who worked as A.E./ D.P.E. at Sangareddy, on 06-06-2000 at about 13.10 hours when he along with his subordinates and staff including PW-3 who was the then A.A.E. at Isnapur were making routine check. At the time of inspection, PW-1 prepared Ex.P-1 inspection notes. PW-4 and Pochamma were stated to be working in the said sand filter unit at the time of inspection. It is stated in Ex.P-1 that both of them did not give any statements. But signature of PW-4 and thumb impression of Pochamma were obtained in Ex.P-1 inspection notes. M.O.1 motor and M.O.2 wire were seized by PW-1 under the cover of Ex.P-1. On the basis of Ex.P-1, PW-1 prepared Ex.P-2 inspection report estimating loss sustained by the department at Rs.31,126/-. On the next day, PW-1 gave Ex.P-3 report to PW-5 who is the then Inspector of Vigilance in A.P.T.S., Sangareddy. On the basis of Ex.P-3, PW-5 issued Ex.P-6 F.I.R., investigated into the case and filed complaint before the lower Court. During investigation PW-5 prepared Ex.P-7 rough sketch of the scene. He also obtained Ex.P-4 certificate from PW-2 who was the then Sarpanch of Pocharam Gram Panchayat about ownership of the sand filter in question. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that no independent witnesses were examined to show ownership of the land or ownership of sand filter. Ownership of land is not the criterion in this case. Ownership of the sand filter is relevant herein. It is further contended that there is no evidence to show as to who connected sand filter to live wire for drawing electricity un- authorizedly. Even though there is no material before the Court as to who actually connected M.O.2 wire of the sand filter unit to overhead electricity line, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that electrical energy was being drawn for the sand filter from overhead line un-authorizedly and that the sand filter was being run with energy in respect of which theft was committed. PWs.1 and 3 are most competent witnesses to speak to theft of electrical energy at the scene by un-authorized tapping of the overhead line for running the sand filter unit motor. PW-4 turned hostile to the prosecution. He says that he does not know whether the accused have got any sand filter unit running with electricity and that he was not working when PW-1 and others inspected the said unit. He admits that Ex.P-1 bears his signature. He says that he attested in Ex.P-1 at the instance of one Sreenu. He did not state for what purpose he signed in Ex.P-1. Simply because one Sreenu asked PW-4 to sign or attest in Ex.P-1, it cannot be believed that PW-4 signed therein. Unless PW-4 has got any connection with either the sand filter unit or with the inspection, PW-4 would not have signed in Ex.P-1. It connotes that PW-4 was present at the sand filter unit when PW-1 along with his staff made inspection of the unit. PW-4 turned hostile to the prosecution and resiled from his previous statement Ex.P- 5 recorded during investigation by PW-5. PW-4’s evidence may not be useful to show as to who was running the sand filter unit. To prove ownership of sand filter unit the prosecution examined PW-2 who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and fined Ex.P-4 certificate issued by him. This evidence of PW-2 that the accused were having sand filter unit in his village and that he gave Ex.P-4 certificate to the effect that the accused is running sand filter unit in S.No.208 of Pocharam village. In cross-examination he deposed that he does not know which survey number belongs to whom and that he is not connected with revenue records. As pointed out earlier, ownership of the land in which the sand filter unit is located is not relevant in this case. Therefore, it is immaterial whether PW-3 knows ownership as per revenue records or not. Ex.P-4 reads that Adivaiah, S/o.Laxmaiah of Pocharam village, Patancheru mandal had established sand filter unit in S.No.208. Name of A-1 in this case is L. Kadavaiah, S/o.Laxmaiah, R/o.Pocharam village. Evidence of PW-2 establishes that the first accused is the said Adivaiah mentioned in Ex.P-4 certificate. There is no mention of A-2 in Ex.P-4 or in evidence of PW-2 with regard to any connection for A-2 with the sand filter unit located in S.No.208. In that view of the matter, A-2 cannot be liable for theft of electrical energy by un-authorized tapping of overhead line to sand filter unit located in S.No.208 of Pocharam village. At the same time, there is sufficient material on record to show that it was A-1 who was running sand filter unit in S.No.208 of Pocharam village by drawing electrical energy by way of theft by tapping overhead line un- authorizedly. In the result, the appeal is partly dismissed in so far as the first appellant/A-1 is concerned; and the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and the sentence passed by the lower Court against the second appellant/A-2 and acquitting him. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 11, 2011 PN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2614 of 2004 October 11, 2011 PN