1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 597 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2010 (State of Maharashtra .v. Deviprasad Shivbhuranlal Shahu) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri C.N. Adgokar, APP for the applicant/State. Shri P.S. Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 14TH DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, leave is sought to file appeal against acquittal by the State of Maharashtra. The respondent/original accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section (1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The case of the prosecution is that the flying squad of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited visited the premises of the respondent on 13.02.2008 to check the electricity distribution, found that the meter was tampered. The electric meter was opened and it was found that the remote circuit was fitted in the meter, thereby the metering of the electricity consumption was stopped which ultimately resulted into commission of theft of Rs.1,68,629/-. By completing necessary formalities, the charge sheet was filed. Learned Court below, on appreciation of evidence, acquitted the accused. The learned Court below on the ground that as there was non observance of the mandatory provisions, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The reason for arriving at the conclusion is at para 18 of the judgment, which reads as follows. “In this case, it was mandatory on the part of PW-1 Mr. Kanhere to lodge a complaint within 24 hours regarding theft of electricity committed by the accused from the 2 time of disconnection. Evidence of prosecution shows that meter was seized on 13.02.2008 at 01:30 p.m., whereas the complaint came to be filed on 15.02.2008 at 07:30 p.m., thereby possibility of tampering with the meter by the prosecution agency cannot be ruled out. Proviso to Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 clearly made it mandatory on the part of the office of the licensee or supplier to lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in Police Station having jurisdiction within 24 hours from the time of such disconnection. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had tampered with the meter and committed theft of electricity.” It is also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that PW-1 Mr. Kanhere has deposed in his cross examination that when he checked the meter, it was recording the reading accurately. He further deposed in the cross examination that the day on which the the meter seized, remote switch was not seized because at that time the accused was not having the switch of remote. Shri C.N. Adgokar, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the applicant/State submits that the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent/accused is very serious as it relates to the theft of electricity energy. He further submits that the judgment impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside. Per contra, Shri P.S. Tiwari, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that no fault can be found with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court as there was non observance of mandatory provisions i.e. the complaint was required to be lodged within 24 hours from the time of disconnection as per the provisions of the Act, which was not done in the present case. He further submits that a consistent view is taken by the Apex Court as well as the High Court that it is a settled principle of law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that way only. To support his submission, learned Counsel for the respondent places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Reddy .v. State of Karnataka with 3 Vanaja .v. State of Karnataka with Nagaraj Kodappa .v. State of Karnataka (reported in AIR 2001 SC 1512). He also relies on the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Satish Babarao Nanote and another .v. State of Maharashtra and others (reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J., 434), wherein it is observed by this Court that it is a settled law that once a statute prescribed that a certain thing should be done in a certain way, it shall be done in that way or not at all. I find considerable merits in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent. The judgment under challenge is based on the appreciation of the evidence and arriving at the conclusion that the mandatory provisions of the Electricity Act were not followed. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is just and probable. No fault can be found with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. It cannot be said that the judgment is either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. In the result leave to appeal is refused. Consequently, the appeal fails. JUDGE *rrg.