IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.136 of 2009 Between: The State of A.P. .. Appellant AND Mallu Rami Reddy .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.136 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment in Transco Calender Case No.2 of 2005, on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under Indian Electricity Act (A.P. Amendment, 2000) 1910, Kurnool, dated 26.02.2007. 2. On the charge sheet ﬁled by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, APCPDC Limited, Kurnool, against the accused in Crime No.4523 of 2002, the special Court of Session took cognizance of the oﬀences under Sections 39 and 44 (aa) of the Indian Electricity Act (A.P. Amendment, 2000), 1910. It was alleged by the prosecution that the accused was running the ﬂour mill of his father and committed theft of electric energy by tapping the same directly from L.T. overhead lines through an aluminum wire. The Assistant Divisional Engineer of D.P.E.II, along with the Additional Assistant Engineer, was stated to have inspected the ﬂour mill and found the illegal tapping of energy for commercial purpose and prepared a notes of inspection seizing the incriminating material under the same. The accused was stated to have attested the inspection notes and on registration of the case by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance, APTS Police Station, APCPDC Ltd., Kurnool, the crime was investigated into and even earlier, the accused paid a ﬁne of Rs.20,000/- in Crime No.96/2000 booked against him. The loss caused due to pilferage of energy was arrived at a figure of Rs.1,68,378/- and hence, the charge. 3. The special Court of Session furnished the copies of the documents to the accused on his appearance and he denied the oﬀence when he was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”). The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and M.O.1 during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and no defence evidence was produced. 4. The special Court rendered the impugned judgment referring to the background of the case and the evidence and arguments of the parties and stated that the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6 and P.W.8 did not establish the connection between the ﬂour mill and the accused merely because of his presence at the time of the inspection. The special Court observed that P.Ws.2 to 8 do not know personally by whom the ﬂour mill was being run and in whose name the service connection stood. Except the evidence of P.W.1 with reference to his inspection notes and the sale agreement between the father of the accused and Venkateswara Reddy, the special Court did not ﬁnd any other incriminating material against the accused to show that he has been looking after the aﬀairs of the mill. The special Court also noted that the crime was originally registered against one Ramachandra Reddy and not the accused and, therefore, the prosecution was considered to have failed to prove that the accused was running the ﬂour mill and tapped the energy illegally for running the same. The service connection was also noted to be not in his name and that apart, the special Court also noted that in the light of the decision of the High Court in Crl.A.No.29 of 2004, the cognizance of the oﬀences could not have been taken directly by the Court of Session and, therefore, the trial of the case, without being committed by the Magistrate, was also observed to be illegal. Accordingly, the special Court acquitted the accused. 5. The State challenges the said judgment through the learned Public Prosecutor in this appeal contending that the necessary ingredients to constitute the oﬀences alleged were made out by the evidence for the prosecution and the evidence was suﬃcient to convict the accused for the alleged offences. 6. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the appellant and Sri K. Soma Konda Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent/accused. 7. The point for consideration is whether the judgment of acquittal is liable to be interfered with. 8. The special Court of Session under Indian Electricity Act (A.P. Amendment, 2000) 1910 had admittedly taken cognizance of the oﬀences directly without being committed by the concerned Magistrate. That such cognizance is bad in law is no longer res integra and is conﬁrmed by more than one precedent from this Court, one of which was referred in the judgment of the special Court. If the cognizance of the oﬀences by the special Court of Session itself was illegal, the further proceedings could not have been sustained in law against the accused and on that ground alone, the judgment of the special Court appears to be beyond the scope of any intervention. 9. Even on facts, the trial Court had discussed the evidence on record in detail and its conclusions that P.Ws.2 to 8 do not know personally by whom the ﬂour mill was being run or in whose name the service connection was standing was based on the positive statements of the witnesses. The conclusion that the service connection was not standing in the name of the accused is not challenged as a matter of fact and why the crime was originally registered against one Ramachandra Reddy was not explained either before the special Court or herein. The mere presence of the accused in the premises on the forenoon at the time of the inspection by P.W.2, even if it was true by itself, could not have fastened any liability either for running the ﬂour mill or for drawing any electric energy illegally without proof of any positive connection between the accused and the mill or between the accused and running of the mill or between the accused and the process of illegal tapping of electric energy through an aluminum wire. The appreciation of evidence by the special Court, therefore, cannot be found fault with under the circumstances and there was absolutely no evidence to convict the accused. The criminal appeal has to, therefore, fail. 10. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18th November, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.136 of 2009 Date: 18th November, 2011 KL