Slngte Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 ACOUITTAL APPEAL N0. QE 2010 APPELLANT COMPLAINANT RESPONDENT : ACCUSED PERSON C»-^p t\\-5 I ( c3 Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyuta Mandal, Bilaspur, through the Assistant Engineer, Nagar Sambhaga, Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS Smt. Pushpalata Shukla, aged about 40 years Wife of Shri K. K. Shukla, Digrashakar Colony, House No. 3/521, Shanti Nagar, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 f4) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE SHRIJMANINDRAMOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT Cr.M.P. No.415/2010 Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Mandal, Bilaspur Versus Srnt. Pushpalata Shukla lAppycatioaJor grant ofSpecial Leave u/S 378 13) ofthe Cr.P.C.l Appearance: Shri P. Tiwary, counsel for the applicant. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 14.09.2010) 1. Heard on application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) oftheCr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that though the prosecution proved froni clinching evidence on record that upon inspection, the electricity meter was found tompered with, respondent/accused has been acquitted of the allegation of coniinission of offence under Sectiori 135 pf the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereihafter referred to as "the Act of 2003") by recording a finding that the meter which was found toinpered with,was fixed in the premises under the possession and control of the tenant and also that the presence of the accused at the time when the inspection was made is doubtful. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while recording such a finding, the leamed Court below completely ignored to take into cbiisideration thatin wiew bf the provisions contained m third prdviso to Section 135 of the Act of 2003, once it is proved that any ardficial means not authorized by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case niay be, exist for the abstraction, consumpdon or use of electrieity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that anyabstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. 3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the leamed trial Court has acquitted the respondent by recording a finding that from the evidence of the prosecution itself, it is proved that the meter was installed in the rented premises, which was under the control and possession of the tenant, whereas the accused -resppndent is residing in the upper floor of fhe house. There is no evidence on record led by t.he prosecution to prove that respondent-accused was the person in whose name electricity cdnnection was provided. Neither the electricity bill nor any other documentary evidence was placed on record by the prosecution to prove that respondent is the consumer in whose name electricity connection was provided by the applicant. All the~ prosecution witnesses have stated that they were told by the tenant and by the respondent- accused that she is the consuiner. In order to draw presumption as contemplated in third proviso to Section ISS^of the Act of 2003, the prosecution is required to place on recopd evidence to prove that the accused was the consuiner in whose name the electricity connecdon was provided in the premises. In the absence of any such evidence, the presumption could not be drawn. In the present case the evidence on record shows that the prosecution could neither establish the ownership of the premises nor electricity connection in the name of ::li^.^.^9&-:\ '?;'^":::i^ -3- '3^ evidence on record shows that the prosecution could neither establish the ownership of the preraises nor electricity connection in the name of respondent lady. The finding recorded by the trial Court therefore cannot be said to be perverse or suffering from any patent illegality on account of omission to consider any relevant piece of evidence on record. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court is possible and plausible view on the basis of evidence and material on record. 4. In the result, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out. Application is accordingly rejected. ,' Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen I. '"