THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 115 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), by the State, is directed against the Judgment, dated 10.06.2008 in S.C. No. 4 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under Indian Electricity Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur whereunder and whereby the respondent-accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the Appeal may be stated as follows: On 22.03.2006 at about 02.30 p.m., P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 inspected the mines of the accused and found him utilizing electric power supply directly from the nearby low tension overhead 3 phase 4W lines with the help of 200 meters multi-core multi-colour flexible wire for de-watering his mines without any authorized service to the premises with a contract load of 17.5 H.P. motor. Ex.P1 inspection notes was prepared at the scene of offence and the same was sent to the Station House Officer concerned, who registered the case. The Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses. P.W.1 assessed the pilferage approximately at Rs.3 lacs. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and a charge under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 has been framed, read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 6 and got marked 9 documents i.e. Exs.P1 to P9 and material objects M.Os. 1 to 5. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that the accused was the owner of the mines in which de-watering has been carried on by using electricity unauthorizedly and accordingly, acquitted him. Challenging the same, the present Appeal is filed by the State. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence alleged against the accused and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 7. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is clear that the accused was using the motors by drawing the electricity unauthorizedly from the nearby low tension lines and therefore, it is an offence punishable under the Act and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved. 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. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the same. 9. Though the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very clear that at the time of inspection of certain mines, at the place of occurrence, they found that some persons were de- watering the mines by using 17.5 H.P. motor by drawing electricity from the nearby low tension overhead line and Ex.P1 would also go to show using of electricity unauthorizedly from the low tension wires. Admittedly, the person using the electricity has no licence and he has not obtained any service connection from the department so as to use the electricity. It must be shown that the accused is the owner of the mines and that he or on his behalf, somebody was de-watering the mines by using the motor by drawing electricity from the nearby electrical wires. There is no evidence to show that the accused is the owner of the mines. There is also no evidence to show that the accused is the owner of the electrical motor fitted in the mines i.e. M.Os. 2 and 3 for the purpose of de- watering the mines. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused was present at the time of inspection or at the time when the alleged pilferage of energy has taken place. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and the said order needs no interference by this Court as there are no compelling or substantial reasons. 10. The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment dated 10.06.2008 in S.C.No. 4 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under Electricity Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. ---------------------- (K. C. BHANU, J) 1st February 2010 ksld