1 crapn175.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 175 OF 2010 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its Deputy Executive Engineer, Flying Squad Unit, Parbhani. ...APPLICANT VERSUS Shri. Nilesh s/o Raghuvir Patel, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, Prop. M/s. Kamla Metal Industries, A-26/1, MIDC Parbhani, R/o. Parbhani. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.S. Rathi, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This application is filed by the applicant, 2 crapn175.10 seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-07-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani. The background facts for filing this appeal, as stated in the application, are as under : 3. The complainant has provided electric connection to the accused. The consumer number of the accused is 530019002534 for the industrial purpose at M.I.D.C. area. The electric number is 048395. The complainant has raised specific contention that on 10-07-2004 the flying squad of the complainant visited the industrial site of the accused. Display which shows meter reading and allied para meters were off. The said meter is of Duke Arnics Make with Sr. No.048395 Lab. No.MTU/PBN/210 dated 31-12-2001, capacity 100-A/5- A, (C.T.ratio), constant 1000 pulses per unit. The plastic seals were found to be tampered. After 3 crapn175.10 inspecting said condition of the meter body it was removed and two paper seals were affixed to it. The representative of the complainant and accused signed on the same. The new meter was installed. The old meter was seized under panchnama for further investigation. The spot inspection report was prepared. On 10-07-2004 the said old meter was opened in the meter testing unit of M.S.E.B. In presence of representative of the accused and internal circuit was inspected. It was observed that the P.C.B. fixing base foundation was damaged of one side and two screws provided were different in appearance. There were three resistances, one was O.K. The other two were faulty. On the backside of the P.C.B. there was a dry soldering, re-soldering was observed at the connection of R.Y and B. phase wires ands neutral wire. It was found that the meter was previously opened and manipulated. The said facts were brought to the notice of the representative of the accused. The photographs of the said anterior situation of the meter was taken. Meter was closed and it was 4 crapn175.10 sealed. Two paper seals were fixed to the meter body. Joint inspection report was prepared. On 13-07-2004 S.E.O. and M. Circle, Parbhani issued provisional bill towards theft of electric energy of Rs.16,85,192/- to the accused for the consumption of 236965 Units. Power supply was disconnected. On 19-07-2004, the representative of Duke Arnics Electronic Limited, Meter manufacturing Company Shri. Prafulla Bhagat on request of the board attended the testing Unit of the complainant. The meter was opened in presence of the representatives of the board and the accused. Shri. Prafulla Bhagat prepared the observation report and it was noted that there was dry solders are observed across R,Y,B phase resistance coming from P.T. which was not as per designed pattern, photographs were taken. The meter was resealed. Two paper seals were affixed to meter body. The representative of accused refused to sign the report. The meter was send to Duke Arnicks Electronics Ltd. Hyderabad for data 5 crapn175.10 retrial and detailed verification. The manufacturer submitted the report and from the same it revealed that accused had tampered the meter and unauthorisedly added external component circuit with the intention of theft of electricity. The said report shows that the meter worked till 8.5.2004, i.e. 8.53 hours. According to complainant, the accused extracted illegal electric energy of 236965 Units which amounted to Rs.16,85,192/- for period of one year and therefore, accused committed offence punishable under Section 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is prayed that accused be directed to pay amount of Rs.16,85,192/- towards theft of electric energy to the complainant. 4. The charge was framed against the accused at Exhibit-19. After full fledged trial, the respondent-accused came to be acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 6 crapn175.10 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the grounds taken in the application and report received from the Company and submitted that on perusal of the report, it will make clear that there was tampering of the meter. Counsel further submitted that the trial Court was not correct in commenting, observing and giving finding about the civil liability, as it is evident from Para-15 and 16 of the impugned judgment. Therefore, learned Counsel would submit that this application seeking leave to appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that on 20-05-2004 letter was given to M.S.E.B. stating therein that display of the meter was not working. Learned Counsel further submitted that reminder was sent to M.S.E.B., however, no steps were taken and therefore, the trial Court has rightly accepted the contention of the respondent-accused and 7 crapn175.10 acquitted him. Learned Counsel further submitted that the meter of the respondent was not seized and some other meter was sent by the Company. Therefore, Counsel would submit that the trial Court has considered the entire material brought on record in its entirety and found that the respondent is entitled for the acquittal. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the application. 7. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused original record available and impugned judgment. It is not necessary to advert to any other aspects of the matter. In Para-12 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has taken note that from the report of the Company, particularly Exhibit-37, it is clear that the meter was working till 08-05-2004. The trial Court has also taken note of letter written by the respondent to the applicant making grievance that display of the meter was off on 19-05-2004. The 8 crapn175.10 trial Court, taking into consideration letter of respondent dated 20-05-2004 and also Exhibit-62 reminder and concluded that since no cognizance of the letter of the respondent was taken, in which it was clearly mentioned that display of the meter was off from 19-05-2004 and therefore, on the date of surprising visit by the Vigilance Squad on 10-07-2004 the meeter was replaced. In the light of observation in Para-12 of the impugned judgment, I find that trial Court has taken a possible view on the strength of material brought on record. 8. It is true that, in Para-15 and 16, the trial Court has entered into exercise of calculation of bills and to some extent, beyond the scope of complaint. However, Counsel for the respondent submitted that so far civil liability is concerned, already the respondent approached to the Consumer Forum and he lost before it. He assures this Court that no undue advantage of the observation in Para-15 and 16 would be taken by 9 crapn175.10 his client in future. 9. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, no case is made out to entertain this application. Hence, the application seeking leave to appeal stands rejected. 10. Registry to send back the original Record and Proceedings to the trial Court, forthwith. sd/- [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/crapn175.10