THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2615 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 379 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.5,000/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal. It is the prosecution case that the accused started two sand filter units in S.No.206 of Pocharam village, Patancheru mandal of Medak District, and was running the same with 5 HP motor by drawing electricity unauthorisedly by tapping overhead lines and that it was detected by PW.1 and his staff during their inspection on 06.06.2000 at 12.25 hrs. Plea of the accused is one of total denial and one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found him guilty of the charge. In this appeal, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is no valid evidence before the Court to show that the accused started sand filter unit in S.No.206 of Pocharam village and that there is no evidence to show that land in S.No.206 belongs to the accused and that there is no evidence to show that it was the accused who connected his unit to the overhead electricity line unauthorisedly and that there is also no panchanama prepared at the time of the alleged inspection. According to PW.1 who worked as Additional Divisional Engineer, Operations, Sanga Reddy at the time of inspection, he prepared Ex.P.1-inspection notes in the presence of son of the accused by name K. Laxmi narayana (PW.3), and he signed in his inspection notes. Son of the accused who is examined as PW.3 during trial in the lower Court denied his presence at the time of inspection and also denied his signature in Ex.P.1. It is evidence of PW.1 that there was tapping of electricity from nearby overhead low tension line through three PVC black colour wires to 5 HP mono block electric pump set in the unit for drawing water for sand filter unit. According to PW.1, when he enquired PW.3, PW.3 informed him that the said sand filter unit belongs to his father who is the accused. No statement of PW.3 is recorded by PW.1 at the time of his inspection as PW.3 is stated to have refused to give any statement. On the basis of Ex.P.1-inspection notes, PW.1 prepared Ex.P.2-inspection report calculating loss of energy by way of pilferage at Rs.52,246/-. MO.1 is the motor with which water was being drawn for the sand filter unit MO.2 contains the wire with which overhead L.T. line was tapped. PW.2 is the line inspector of Isnampur village who accompanied PW.1 at the time of inspection. He also signed in Ex.P.1. On the next date of inspection, PW.1 gave Ex.P.3-report to PW.5 who is the Inspector of Vigilance in APTS, Sanga Reddy. He registered Ex.P.3 and issued Ex.P.6-FIR. He investigated into the case and filed charge sheet in the lower Court. During investigation, he prepared Ex.P.7-rough sketch of the scene of offence. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that no evidence of neighbouring land owners is let-in in the lower Court to show that it was the accused who was running the sand filter unit. In my opinion, ownership of the land is immaterial. It is to be proved by the prosecution as to who was running the sand filter unit with the help of pilfered electrical energy. In order to prove the same, PW.5 collected a certificate from sarpanch of Pocharam Gram Panchayat. The said sarpanch was examined by the prosecution as PW.4 in the lower Court. Ex.P.5 is photostat copy of the certificate said to have been issued by PW.4. Original certificate is not filed into the Court. No reason was put forward as to why original certificate issued by PW.4 could not be filed or produced in the lower Court during trial. It is evidence of PW.4 that the accused was not having sand filter unit. But, at the same time, PW.4 deposed that he issued original of Ex.P.5 at the instance of Transco Police. Ex.P.5 reads that Kavali Yadaiah, s/o Ramaiah of Pocharam village who is the accused is having two sand filters in S.No.206. But, for reasons best known to PW.4, he now deposed in Court that the accused is not having sand filter unit. Ex.P.5 which is a photostat copy has no evidentionary value in Court, except to the extent of using the same as previous statement made by PW.4. The evidence of PW.4 in Court is to the effect that the accused is not having sand filter units. Except this piece of evidence, there is no other legal piece of evidence on record to show that the accused is owner of sand filter units in this case, which units were being run with the help of pilfered electrical energy. In that view of the matter, finding of the lower Court against the accused on his guilt cannot stand to scrutiny. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and the sentence passed by the lower Court against the appellant/accused and acquitting him. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 12th October, 2011 KSM