HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.A.No.2618 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.3,000/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal. The accused is owner of Balaji Saw Mill located in Kaikalacheruvu on Tirupati-Renigunta road. He was running his Saw Mill by taking service connection No.46 under Category-III. It is alleged that when electricity officials inspected Saw Mill premises of the accused on 07.02.2001 at about 13.40 hours, it was found that electricity meter was not running and inspite of it lights were glowing and Saw Mill was running with the help of motor and that on verification of the meter, it was found that outer seal of the meter as well as inner seals of the cut outs of the meter were tampered with and they were so meddled that meter does not record consumption of electrical energy by the Saw Mill unit. Plea of the accused is one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found the accused guilty of the charge. In the grounds of appeal, it was contended by the appellant that simply because the meter was struck up it cannot be said that he meddled with mechanism of the meter and committed theft of energy. It is further contended that no panchnama was prepared and that previous electricity consumption bills do not indicate any tampering of meter of the Saw Mill unit and that the appellant lodged complaint with the electrical Engineers about non-functioning of the meter and requesting for change of the meter, and in spite of reminders, no action was taken in that regard. Even though there was plea on the part of the accused about he sending complaints to the electricity Department about non-functioning of the meter and seeking replacement of the meter and further sending reminders to the Department in that regard, no attempt was made by the accused in the lower Court to file copies of the complaints, remainders muchless, proof of sending thereof to the Department. The appellant also did not make any attempt to mark any of the previous bills as defence documents. P.W.1 is the then Assistant Engineer, DPE-II, Tirupati and was incharge of Assistant Divisional Engineer, DPE-II, Tirupati. It is his evidence that on 07.02.2001 at 13.40 hrs, he along with PW.2 and other Engineers and staff inspected Saw Mill premises of the accused and noticed non-functioning of meter, even though lights were glowing and motor was running. He says that on detailed examination, it was found that the meter box was found tampered and that cutting plier marks and repressing marks are observed on the seal bit and that after opening meter box, four meter cover seals, meter cover MRT seals were found tampered ie. sealing wire is freely coming out from the seal bit groves and screws were also found loose. He says that the consumer by tampering meter cover seals and by disturbing internal mechanism made the meter struck up. He prepared Ex.P.1 inspection notes at the time of his inspection. He estimated loss to the Department at Rs.4,27,839/- for the connected load for a period of one year as per rules and sent Ex.P.2 inspection report. He gave Ex.P.3 report to PW.3, the Sub-Inspector of Police, A.P.T.S. Police Station, Tirupati. PW.3 registered case in Crime No.149 of 2001 and issued Ex.P.4 F.I.R. He prepared Ex.P.5 rough sketch of the scene during investigation. In cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that the meter was not struck up, but was made not to function. PW.1 expressed his ignorance about the consumer/accused sending complaints about non-functioning of the meter to the Department. There was no need for conducting any panchnama as such with the help of any mediators because PW.1 was not discharging any functions under Cr.P.C. at the time of detection of the offence. Evidence of PW.1 further reveals that son of the accused was present in the Saw Mill unit at the time of inspection and he signed in Ex.P.1 inspection report. The tampered seals of the meter were collected as per MOs 1 and 2 by PW.1 and they were kept in the covers which were pasted and paper slips containing signatures of PW.1 as well as some of the accused were pasted on MOs 1 and 2 covers. PW.2 who was the then ADE/DPE HT, Tirupati who accompanied PW.1 to Saw Mill unit of the accused, corroborated PW1’s evidence on all aspects to the effect that meter seals were tampered with and the meter was meddled by the consumer to see that the meter is struck up. Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 amply proved that the consumer/accused tampered outer as well as inner seals of the meter and meddled with the meter so that the meter gets struck up without recording consumption of electrical energy in the unit. The lower Court considered the entire evidence on record with reference to arguments advanced by the defence counsel and finally rightly came to the conclusion in favour of the prosecution finding the accused guilty. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to come to a different conclusion in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt.17th October, 2011. PNV