THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2013 of 2004 BETWEEEN: Kotni Venkat Rao … Appellant AND The State of Andhra Pradesh … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2013 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act No.35 of 2000 and was sentenced to Simple Imprisonment of two months and ﬁne of Rs.5,000/- on each of the counts separately. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal. 1. PW1 was the then Assistant Divisional Engineer, (D.P.E.II), Visakhapatnam. He inspected Rice mill of M.Beemunaidu in M.Kotapadu Village of Madugula Mandal and the accused was present in the rice mill. PW3 is the then Assistant Accounts Oﬃcer, Electricity Revenue Oﬃce, Anakapalle, who gave particulars of Service Connection No.13 of Category-3, which is a Rice mill of M.Kotapadu Village. He furnished Ex.P5-Statement of consumption particulars of the said Rice mill. Though as per the service, registered customer was M.Beemunaidu, he was no more. The accused is grandson of the said registered customer and he was the beneﬁciary of the Rice mill presently. He was running the Rice mill at the time of PW1’s inspection. PW2 who is former Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat deposed that late M.Beemunaidu was having a Rice mill in the village and that the accused is grand son of the said Rice mill owner and that the accused is now running the said Rice mill and looking after its management and aﬀairs. At the time of inspection, PW1 prepared Ex.P1- Inspection notes, in which the accused signed. In Column No.X of the inspection notes, statement of the accused was recorded in his own handwriting, together with signature. 2. It is the prosecution case that the electricity meter was tampered with, resulting in the meter not recording the consumption correctly. Plea of the accused is one of total denial and not guilty. It is PW1’s evidence that the mill was running at the time of his inspection and that he inspected the meter and found that there was no terminal cover seal to the meter and that the meter disc was rotating slowly and in forward direction and that when the meter was tested with 2 KW heater load, the meter disc rotated in reverse direction upto the reverse stopper in ‘R’ and ‘B’ phases and in forward direction in ‘Y’ phase and that on detailed inspection, it was noticed that at the meter terminal block, the incoming and outgoing phase wires were reversed in ‘R’ and ‘B’ phases and that the connections were found normal in ‘Y’ phase. PW1 also speaks to the accused signing in Ex.P1- Inspection notes and also writing his statement in his own handwriting and signing therein in Column No. X of the said inspection notes. PW1 says that they set right the connection and that after correcting the connection, they tested the meter with 2 K.W. load heater and the meter rotated forward in all the three phases and that the said fact was also shown to the accused and that a meter terminal cover seal was put to the terminal cover. Subsequently, PW1 prepared Ex.P2- Inspection Report assessing loss sustained by the department provisionally at Rs.1,09,952.56 paise. He also gave Ex.P3 report to PW4, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance in A.P.TRANSCO Police Station, Visakhaptnam, who registered the same and issued Ex.P4-FIR. After investigation during which he prepared Ex.P6- Rough sketch of the scene and Ex.P7- Observation Report, filed the charge sheet in the lower Court. 3. In cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he did not make an attempt to secure presence of independent mediators while proceeding to the mill. He denied the suggestion that he obtained signatures of the accused in Ex.P1 outside the premises of the mill. There is no dispute about the accused signing in Ex.P1- Inspection notes prepared by PW1 giving the above details. The accused also did not deny his handwriting in the statement contained in Para 10 of Ex.P1. In this case, there is no seizure of the meter by PW1. At the time of inspection, physical features in the meter were noted in Ex.P1-Inspection notes. In the statement of the accused contained in Column No. X of Ex.P1, it is noted by the accused as follows: “X. When the inspection team came and inspected the meter, the wheel in ﬁrst and third phase is rotating reverse. Only the second phase is rotating forward. They showed the change of wires in ﬁrst and third phase. They told us that an electrician came and adjusted the wires one week back. We do not know what was done by that time. When tested with a heater, it is noticed that the wheel in ﬁrst and third phase is rotating reverse and in second phase, it is rotating forward. They showed us on changing the wires in ﬁrst and third phase in reverse and the wheel is rotating forward. After corrections of connections in all the three phases, the wheel is rotating forward. They sealed the meter terminal cover.” 4. In Column No.VII of Ex.P1, incriminating points are noted as follows: “ VII. At the time of inspection there is no TC seal is available. The meter disc is rotating in reverse direction upto reverse stopper in ‘R’ and ‘B’ phases and forward in ‘Y’ phase when tested with 2 K.W. heater. On detailed examination, it is noticed that the incoming and outgoing phase wires of ‘R’ and ‘B’ phases are in reverse direction. The recorded consumption is unduly low.” 5. The above particulars noted in Ex.P1, undoubtedly indicate that the electricity meter of the Rice mill was tampered with by removing outer terminal seal and by giving reverse wire connection to ‘R’ and ‘B’ phases, so that the meter rotates in reverse direction, in case electricity is consumed through those phases. From the above evidence, it is clear that there is theft of electrical energy in the Rice mill of the accused by tampering the meter. In the light of the said evidence on record, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion in favour of the prosecution insofar as the oﬀences under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act are concerned. I do not ﬁnd any valid or legal grounds to come to a diﬀerent conclusion in this appeal. The lower Court was also very lineant in awarding sentence of imprisonment in this case. 6. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:07.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2013 of 2004 Dt:07.12.2011 ysk