HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4808 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioner established Slab Polishing industry at Ramapuram Village, Owk Mandal, Kurnool District. The factory premises was inspected on 17-11-2000 by the 2nd respondent. Alleging that the petitioner resorted to acts of pilferage, the respondents initiated proceedings before the Special Court, under the Indian Electricity (A.P. Amendment) Act, 2000, (for short ‘the Act’) at Hyderabad. The case was tried as ESC No.3 of 2001. After conducting trial, the Court convicted the petitioner for committing offence under Section 39 of the Act. Punishment of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- were imposed. The petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, in case of default of payment of fine. The trial Court has also dealt with the liability of the petitioner to pay compensation in terms of money for the acts of pilferage. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order. 2. Heard Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The principal contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner are that the prosecution ordered against the petitioner is in contravention of Section 50 of the Act and that the acts of pilferage were not proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner is now aged about 65 years and a liberal approach needs to be adopted in his case. 4. The question as to whether the respondent can initiate prosecution under the Act was dealt with by this Court in W.P. No.7975 of 2002. Through order, dated 11-03-2010, it was held that it was competent for the officials of the Power Distribution Company to initiate prosecution. So far as the proof of offence is concerned, this Court took the view that the proceedings under the Act are summary in nature and when a detailed trial was conducted by examining the witnesses, the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be found fault with. In a way, the allegations made against the petitioner in that case on the one hand, and those made against the petitioner herein, are identical. Ultimately, this Court partly allowed that writ petition by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to three months and enhancing the fine to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.5,000/-. Similar approach needs to be adopted in this case also. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is very old and the sentence as to imprisonment may be reduced. 6. Taking the overall facts into account, this Writ Petition is partly allowed directing that, (a) The conviction ordered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act be and hereby affirmed. (b) The sentence against the petitioner is modified to be the one of Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, including the period of imprisonment, if any, already undergone and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. (c) If the petitioner paid any amount over and above, what was decided against him towards civil liability at various stages of the proceedings, he shall be entitled to claim refund of the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 28, 2011. KTL