THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.899 OF 2004 DATED 10th NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : K.Ramana Reddy ..Appellant-Accused and The State of A.P. ..Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.899 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal arises out of judgment dated 08.04.2004 rendered in C.C.No.34 of 2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, wherein the learned Judge convicted the appellant under Section 255 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 39 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The allegations against the appellant-accused are that on 11.12.2000 at 11-15 a.m. during the inspection by A.P. Transco officials in the premises of Rice & Flour Mill belonging to the accused, he was found utilizing the electrical energy without having any service connection by directly tapping the same from nearby L.T. overhead lines by means of triple core PVC black colour wire to his 7.5 H.P. Rice & Flour Mill for industrial benefit under Category-III. After due enquiry, the accused was found to have caused loss to the Electricity Board to the tune of Rs.31,023-50. Hence, the charge. When a charge under Section 39 of the Act has been framed, read over and explained to the appellant-accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. In order to prove the allegations levelled against the accused, the Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 on its behalf and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and MO.1. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C also accused denied the incriminating evidence read over to him, which is available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. After hearing both sides and perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment. Heard. After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the appellant by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the appellant. In view of the said submission, this Court is of the view that merits of the Prosecution case and impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. Section 39 of the Act reads as under: “Theft of Energy: Whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fie which shall not be less than one thousand rupees, or with both, and if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorized by the licensee exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of energy by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of energy has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.” Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2000 and for all these years the accused suffered humiliation and also stigma in the society. It is represented that the appellant is the sole breadwinner of his family and has to look after the welfare his family members. In these circumstances and also in view of the nature of offence committed by the accused, this Court is inclined to show some lenience against him. Accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. However, considering the circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed on the appellant is hereby set aside and the appellant is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only), apart from the fine amount imposed by the trial Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The remaining portion of the impugned judgment shall stand unchanged. With above modification, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 10.11.2010 sur