1 criapln3327-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3327 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. APPLICANT V/s Bhausaheb Gopala Dube .. RESPONDENT .... Mrs.R.K.Ladda,APP.for State. .... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,JJ. DATE : 25/04/2011 ORAL ORDER 1] This application is filed for grant of leave to file Appeal against judgment and order in Special Case No.35/06 which was pending in the Court of Judge, Special Court, Sangamner, the Court assigned for conducting cases filed under The Indian Evidence Electricity Act 2003. 2] By order dated 24/2/10, the trial Court has acquitted the present respondent for offence punishable under Section 135 of The Indian 2 criapln3327-10 Electricity Act, 2003. The record of the case was called and A.P.P. is heard. 3] The record shows that on 23/6/06 when Jr.Engineer and members of flying squad effected raid in various houses. They noticed that some persons were committing theft of electricity by using hooks from the main pole. Such illegal connections were taken by 3 persons in their respective houses and one was the present respondent. There were gadgets like Fan, Television etc. in the house of respondent and he was using the facility of electricity illegally. A bill of this electricity amounting to Rs.13,450/- was given but respondent did not deposit it and then report came to be given. Junior Engineer Devendrda Nalawade and other employees of M.S.E.B. viz. Vishwanath Kulkarni have given evidence in the trial Court. The two panch witnesses Somnath Godse and Sitaram Shete have not supported the prosecution case but there is evidence of the officers and employees of M.S.E.B. The relevant documents at panchanama are proved. The trial Court has given benefit of doubt to the respondent on the basis of circumstance that admissions are given by witnesses as to the absence of personal knowledge as to who had taken the connection. However, it was submitted by learned A.P.P. that the evidence is sufficient to gather that it is the accused who had taken the connection as the connection was taken in the house of the accused. 3 criapln3327-10 3] It is a strong case for argument for the State and hence application is allowed. Appeal is admitted. Action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. be taken against respondent. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] umg/criapln3327-10