( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.201 OF 2009 Abdul Hafiz Abdul Khalik Ansari Appellant V/s 1. The State of Maharashtra Respondents & another. -------------------------------------------------------- Mr.C.R.Deshpande Advocate for the appellant. Mr.K.S.Patil A.P.P. for the State. ------------------------------------------------------- [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 22nd July, 2009] PER COURT : 1] This appeal is directed against Judgment and order rendered in Special Case No.138 of 2007 whereby he has been convicted for offence U/Sec.138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. ( 2 ) 2] Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 12/06/2006, the Junior Engineer of M.S.E.B. Dhule visited residential house of the appellant. He carried out examination of the electricity metre. He noticed that the speed of the metre was less to the extent of 65 %, the seal of the electricity metre was tampered with, broken and resistant was placed in the metre. He came to the conclusion that approximately 320 units of electricity had been pilfered, the appellant was prosecuted U/Sec.135 and 138 of Electricity Act. 3] The offence punishable U/Sec.135 of the Electricity Act was compounded in as much as the amount demanded by the M.S.E.D.C.L. was deposited alongwith the penalty. The Learned Special Judge held that the appellant committed offence U/Sec.138 of the Electricity Act in as much as he tampered with the electricity metre and changed the initial frame thereof. Hence the impugned order of conviction of sentence was rendered. 4] The Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that versions of the complainant and his witness are ( 3 ) discrepant regarding presence of the appellant at the time of checking of electric metre. He would submit that the offence was not duly proved against the appellant. 5] The Learned Special Judge has appreciated evidence of the complainant and the panch witness. It is noticed by the Learned Special Judge that version of the complainant clearly established the fact that the electricity metre was checked in the presence of the appellant. The appellant admits his presence at the relevant time during his statement U/Sec.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code recorded by the trial Court. It is obvious that this discrepancy in the statement of the complainant and P W 2 Joshi is rather insignificant. The recitals of the FIR (Exh.12) and the spot panchanama (Exh.15) have been duly corroborated by the witnesses. The very fact that the electricity metre installed at the residence of the appellant was found tampered goes to prove the offence. There appears no perversity in the appreciation of the evidence as undertaken by the Learned Special Judge . The offence U/Sec.138 of the Electricity Act is made out in as much as interference ( 4 ) with the electricity metre at hands of the appellant is duly proved. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal. 6] In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order of trial Court is maintained. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE DSP/criapl.201.09