THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1620 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2003 made in Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2000 by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur whereby the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner by the learned 2nd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurajala in C.C.No.10 of 2000 dated 08.05.2000 for the offence punishable under section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act (for short ‘the Act) was confirmed. 2 The charge levelled against the petitioner is that on 18.05.1995 at 23.40 hours P.Ws.1 to 5 inspected the cement factory premises of the petitioner and the meter equipment bearing H.T.No.383, Category No.I in the presence of the petitioner and noticed that the petitioner was pilfering the electrical energy illegally and unauthorisedly by directly connecting 11 K.V. line at H.G. Fuse incoming point of A.P.S.E. Board’s Double Pole structures of C.T.P.T. cubical H.G. Fuse outgoing by means of three flexible copper wires of 40 ft. length each by-passing the meter equipment i.e. cubical and energy meter to the cement factory of the petitioner and seized M.O.1 Multi standard flexible wires of 40 ft. length each and also got the arrangement made by the petitioner photographed by P.W.6 – photographer. P.W.1 prepared Ex.P.24 Inspection notes in the presence of the officials and the petitioner and recorded all the details. The loss sustained by the A.P.S.E. Board was assessed to Rs.2,10,12,807/-. On 20.05.1995 P.W.1 sent the complaint to P.W.8 through post whereupon a case in Cr.No.15 of 1995 was registered for the offence punishable under section 44 of the Act. 3 In order to bring home the guilt of the petitioner the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.26. On behalf of the petitioner though no oral evidence was adduced, Exs.D.1 to D.24 were marked. 4 The trial court, on analysis of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Questioning the said judgment dated 08.05.2000 passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2000 and the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur dismissed the same by his judgment dated 31.10.2003. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred this revision. 5 The learned senior counsel Sri Bali Reddy appearing for the petitioner, among various other contentions, mainly contended that there is absolutely no investigation done physically by P.Ws.7 and 8 who are the investigating officers and the search conducted by the prosecution party is not in accordance with Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. He further contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not supported by any independent witness and in support of the said contention he relied on a decision rendered by this court in Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad Vs. Bakka Srinivas and others[1]. 6 This court is unable to appreciate any of the above contentions for the following reasons. The search proceedings were initiated at 11.40 PM on 18.05.1995 and the same were completed by 10.00 AM on 19.05.1995. P.W.1 has categorically deposed that he took one day time for preparing the inspection notes and for assessing the loss sustained by the government and on the very same day i.e. on 20.05.1995 he sent the inspection report by post and the same was received by P.W.8 on 23.05.1995. Thereafter P.W.8 after registering Ex.P.6 FIR sent the same to the court by post, which was received by the learned Magistrate on 26.05.1995. Hence there is no unanswerable delay in registering the case. 7 The next contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the search proceedings were not conducted in accordance with Section 100 of Cr.P.C. This court is unable to accept the said contention for the reason that the search was conducted at 11.40 PM on the said date, at which time, it is not possible for the departmental officials to secure any mediators. Further, P.Ws.1 to 5 who are the official witnesses have categorically deposed in chorus about the alleged search and without any contradictions. Their evidence on this aspect clingingly establishes the offence committed by the petitioner. Even the petitioner has also not denied the said search proceedings and his presence was also not denied at the time of the alleged search. Simply because no mediators were secured at that time, the unimpeachable evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 cannot be brushed aside on that score alone. The petitioner, during the course of 313 Cr.P.C. examination had simply denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but he did not attribute any motive or ill-will to the prosecution witnesses stating that the departmental officials have bore grudge against him for any purpose. 8 Of course, the petitioner contended that in view of Exs.D.1 to D.23 electricity bills, which are prior to the date of the offence and subsequent to the date of offence there cannot be any pilferage of electrical energy unauthorisedly by the petitioner. But the said contention cannot be countenanced in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, which is to the effect that the petitioner had pilfered the electrical energy directly from the HT line to his factory unauthorisedly by using M.O.1 wires bypassing the meter and he has not produced any production figures showing the meter reading before and after the date of offence. 9 The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that virtually there was no investigation done by the investigating officers P.Ws.7 & 8. May be it is true, but on that score alone the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away for the reason that there is ample evidence available on record. P.Ws.1 to 5 have deposed in one voice to the effect that the petitioner had pilfered the electrical energy bypassing the meter. They had also got photographed the arrangement made by the petitioner to pilfer the electrical energy. The photographs produced by the prosecution reflect the said arrangement. It is to be noticed that the petitioner was physically present when the entire search was conducted and had signed on the inspection notes, but he did not dispute the same stating that his signature was obtained by force or some thing else. So the contention that the investigating officers have not done any investigation cannot be given credence in the given circumstances. Further, it should be remembered that it is only a revision where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be reassessed. 10 Further, Bakka Srinivas case (1 supra) relied on by the petitioner is of no use for the present case on hand. In the said case the accused replaced the meter seals and committed theft of electrical energy. But in the case on hand the facts are different. It is not the case of the prosecution in this case that the petitioner had replaced the meter seals. The allegation is that the petitioner arranged M.O.1 wires for pilfering the electrical energy bypassing the meter and by directly connecting the 11 K.V. line H.G. fuses to the incoming point of the Board. 11 In fact, both the courts have concurrently decided all these aspects and have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed the alleged offence and hence this court sees no merits in this revision. Further, as seen from the judgments impugned in this revision, this court is of the view that both the courts below have given cogent and convincing reasons for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed the alleged offence and hence the said concurrent findings need no interference. 12 However, having regard to the fact that the alleged offence took place in the year 1995 and the petitioner was in jail for a period of about two weeks, this court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence is concerned. 13 Accordingly, while maintaining the sentence of imposition of fine, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of three years imposed by the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 25.02.2011 Kvsn [1] 1998 (2) ALD (Crl.) 174 (AP)