THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.119 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal by the State is filed under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {Cr.P.C.}, against the judgment dated 05.05.2008 in Sessions Case No.4 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under Indian Electricity Act (I Additional Sessions Judge), Guntur, whereunder and whereby, the respondent/sole accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 135 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 {“the Act” for brevity}. 2. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the accused is running a rice mill under the name and style of Gopikrishna Rice Working Company. That on 12.05.2001, P.Ws.1 and 2 inspected the said premises and found that the Rice Mill was working by using electric energy, but the same was not recorded by the meter. The seals of C.T. box were not intact and were containing cutting pliers marks. Inspection notes was prepared and the loss of energy was estimated to Rs.4,80,437/-. On 06.06.2001, a complaint was lodged. The Inspector of Police (Vigilance), APTS, Guntur, registered case in crime No.166 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 {“the Act, 1910” for brevity}. 3. The Special Judge for Trial of offences under the Act upon hearing the learned Defence counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor and after going through the material available on record, framed a charge under Section 135 (1) of the Act, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of accused, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.D1 was marked. 5. The trial Court came to the conclusion that P.W.1 failed to establish that the meter was tampered with by the accused and accordingly, he was found not guilty and acquitted. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 135 (1) of the Act beyond all reasonable doubt? 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very clear that the meter, which is in exclusive possession of the accused, has been tampered with and therefore, prays to set aside the judgment impugned. 8. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved, and that presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless a finding is shown to be improper or not based upon any admissible evidence, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the same. There must be compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order. 9. P.Ws.1 to 3 stated that they have inspected the rice mill of the accused on 12.05.2001 and found that the meter was opened, the seals were not intact and they contained cutting pliers impressions. No doubt the meter was under the exclusive control and custody of the accused. But in the absence of any circumstances that the electricity meter was not meddled with by the accused, it can be presumed that the accused has meddled with the meter. But in this case, evidently, the accused addressed a letter on 06.04.2001 under the original of Ex.D1 to the Electricity Department with a complaint of non-functioning of the meter fitted in the rice mill premises i.e., nearly one month prior to the inspection made by the Inspecting Officials. On 29.04.2001, the Officers concerned of the Electricity Department inspected the meter, removed the seals and the same was acknowledged on the original on Ex.D1. The original of Ex.D1 was seized by the inspecting agency but the same was not produced before the Court. That appears to be correct as P.W.2 clearly acknowledged Ex.D1 to test the meter fixed to the rice mill of the accused as defective on 12.05.2001. If really the accused had any intention to tamper with the meter, he would not have addressed a letter to the Department about the non-functioning of the meter one month prior to the inspection. On the other hand, the Electricity Officials inspected the premises and removed the seals, may be with an intention to rectify the defective meter. So, in that process they must have tampered with the seals. Therefore, there was no scope for the accused to tamper with the seals or meddle with the meter with an intention to commit theft of electric energy. Had the accused not addressed a letter in the shape of original of Ex.D1, which is admitted by the prosecution witnesses, then it can be said to be meddling with the meter by the accused. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused on the basis of Ex.D1 and such an order needs no interference. 10. The appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment dated 05.05.2008 in Sessions Case No.4 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Act (I Additional Sessions Judge), Guntur. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 28th January 2010 RRB