THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2538 of 2004 BETWEEEN: Metta Garikanaidu, S/o. Chinnammadu … Appellant AND State of A.P. rep.by Public Prosecutor … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2538 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months on each count and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal. 2. The accused was running rice mill under the name and style of Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill at Boppadam Village and was having electrical service connection No.11 of Category- III. It is alleged that on 09.08.2002, at about 15:15 hours, team of Engineers, including PWs 1 to 3, along with Line Inspector, Sarubujjili (PW4) inspected service connection of the rice mill of the accused and found that wooden P.F.box was in broken condition and that after opening top side cover of P.F. box, it was noticed that there were two holes to the meter cover on the top side of the box and that the inspection was made in the presence of the consumer’s son, Venkataramana, who was present at the rice mill premises and that the meter was seized and new meter was arranged and that the seized meter was referred to M.R.T. laboratory at Srikakulam for testing and that PW5, who tested the seized meter on 12.08.2002, found that there were three holes, including two holes found by the Engineers and also found fourteen broom stick pieces inside the meter which might have been inserted by the consumer to obstruct rotation of the meter disc in order to tamper with the meter reading. The loss due to pilferage of energy was estimated at Rs.2,47,393/-. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty and total denial. After trial, the lower Court found the accused guilty of both the charges. 3. PW1 is Divisional Engineer at Srikakulam. PW2 is A.D.E/D.P.E/Srikakulam. PW3 is A.E./D.P.E/Srikakulam. PW4 is the Line Inspector of Sarubujjili. PWs 1 to 4 speak to the inspection of the rice mill made on 09.08.2002. At that time, on the dictation of PW1, PW2 prepared Ex.P1-Inspection notes. Ex.P2 is inspection report submitted by PW1 on 12.08.2002. On the same day, PW1 gave Ex.P3 report to the Inspector of Police, A.P.T.S. Police Station, Srikakulam, who registered the case, investigated into the same and filed complaint before the lower Court. At the time of inspection, Ex.P6-rought sketch was prepared. Ex.P5 is FIR issued by PW6 on the basis of Ex.P3 report. PW5 is A.D.M.R.T. at Srikakulam. He examined the seized meter-MO.1 and gave Ex.P4 report. PWs1 to 4 speak to condition of the meter in rice mill of the accused at the time of their inspection. The said condition is also noted in Ex.P1 inspection notes, in which Venkataramana, who is son of the accused signed. There is no dispute that Venkataramana is son of the accused. It is suggested to PW1 in cross-examination that Venkataramana is enemical towards the accused and that he was not in charge of the rice mill. PW1 denied the said suggestion. The said Venkataramana is not examined. Since Venkataramana happened to be son of the accused, the Court cannot expect Venkataramana being examined by the prosecution. It is not the case of the accused that Venkataramana did not sign in Ex.P1. PWs 1 to 4 speak to broken condition of P.F. box of the meter and also existence of two holes in the outer box of the meter to enable the consumer to meddle with running of the meter in order to interfere with recording of consumption in the meter. 4. It is evidence of PW5 that on 12.08.2002, PW1 along with Venkataramana, who is son of the accused came to his laboratory and brought sealed box along with identification slips containing the signatures of the registered consumer. PW5 tested MO.1 meter. He says that on testing, it is noticed that there were three nail made holes on top of the meter cover and that after opening seals, he found fourteen small broom sticks (Mo.2) inside the meter. The evidence of PWs 1 to 5 together with Ex.P1- Inspection notes, Ex.P2- Inspection report and Ex.P4-M.R.T. report undoubtedly indicate that there was tampering of meter in the rice mill premises of the accused by making holes on the top of the meter and it enabled the accused to tamper with the meter reading resulting in loss to the department towards value of energy to the extent of provisional estimation of Rs.2,47,393/- . Simply because the accused is stated to have paid about Rs.30,000/- towards value of pilfered energy, it cannot be said that there is compounding of the offences. Payment of value of the pilfered energy as estimated by the department and as confirmed by the Superintending Engineer will not amount to compounding of the offences. It only amounts to compensating the department. 5. It is contended in the grounds that MO.2 -fourteen small broomstick pieces inside the meter were not seized in the presence of mediators. The meter-Mo.1 as such was seized and it was sealed. Subsequently, the sealed meter-Mo.1 was produced before PW5 by PW1 as well as Venkataramana. When PW5 opened the meter, it was found to contain MO.2- fourteen broomstick pieces inside the meter. The meter was not broke open in the rice mill premisis in order to seize fourteen broomstick pieces from inside the meter. It is the accused who was in possession of Mo.1-meter installed in his rice mil and he was using the same by way of drawing Electrical energy through that meter. It is for him to explain as to how outer box of the meter was broken and as to how there were three nail made holes on top of the meter and as to how fourteen broomstick pieces went inside the sealed meter. Observations of PW5 and Ex.P4- M.R.T. Report undoubtedly proved that the consumer/accused tampered with the meter in order to manipulate functioning of the meter to prevent recording of consumption of Electrical energy properly. The evidence on record proved beyond any doubt that the accused was committing theft of Electrical energy by tampering with the meter. The lower Court rightly came to the conclusion in favour of the prosecution and found the accused guilty of the offences. There are no grounds in this appeal to come to a different conclusion. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:12.09.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2538 of 2004 Dt:12.09.2011 ysk