-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 666 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 666 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 666 OF 2007 Maharashtra State Electricity Supply Co.Ltd. Niphad Branch, through Junior Engineer Shri Arvind Prabhakar Pingale. ...Applicant. V/s. Mr. Aslam Rafique Pathan & Anr. ...Respondents. Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. Sandeep K. Shinde for Respondent 1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATE DATE DATE : 07TH AUGUST 2008. : 07TH AUGUST 2008. : 07TH AUGUST 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Being dissatisfied with the Judgment of acquittal in Sessions Case No.36 of 2006 recorded by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, the State has sought leave to appeal. 2. The facts in brief are PW-1 Arvind Pingale is Junior Engineer of the complainant Electricity Supply Company and during the Course of his employment on 26.8.2005 when he was attached to Ugaon Section, searching and inspecting the area for recovery of arrears of electricity bills, he alongwith panch witness went to the flour mill belonging to the accused and he found the body seals of the meter were damaged and the meter might have been open. On test he also found that meter was running slow. According to him there should be 125 pulses but he noticed 68 -:2:- pulses within 1 minute and he suspected the tempering of the meter. The meter was running 75% slow and consequently, he seized the said meter in presence of panchas at Exhibit 45. 3. Apart from PW-1, PW-2 Dilip Ramchandra Bhurake was also examined, who allegedly tested the meter. 4. The learned Judge found that there is no authorisation or any authority produced by the complainant PW-1 as mandated under Section 151 of Electricity Act 2003. With the assistance of learned Counsel representing Respondent, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is read and the witness has categorically accepted that he has no authorisation or power of attorney which he has produced at the time of lodging the complaint or at the time of his evidence. It is, thus, obvious that the basic compliance of Section 151 is missing. 5. The witness carried with him 3 persons from Niphad when he went to the flour mill of the respondent, they all acted as panch. However, they are not examined to indicate that at the material time the accused were present and survey was done in their presence. PW-1 in his evidence narrates that the meter was tested by him. However, before the Court it is PW-2 Dilip Bhurake who allegedly carried the test, -:3:- this anomaly noticed in evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 had gone un-explained. 6. The learned Judge also noticed that clause 135(3) of the Electricity Act speaks about presumption. However, the complainant did not led foundation to this effect, he has to explain if certain artificial means is inserted in the meter, what could be the position. PW-2 Dilip indicates that muddemal meter article is in the plastic body. The company had made provision that the upper cover of the meter is not opened. If attempt is made to open the meter, locks at upper side gets cracks. After the upper cover of meter is removed, then only alterations can be made in meter. PW-2 did not find any such crack in upper side of meter which was produced before the learned Judge. All these aspects weighed by the learned Judge to record acquittal. I do not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Judge. 7. Hence, leave to appeal rejected. (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)