STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. ABDUL HAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Case of the prosecution is that the complainant Manohar Rao Biradar who was the Assistant Executive Engineer at GESCOM, Vigilance, Bidar, on getting credible information of theft of electricity pertaining to the house of accused persons situated at Naubad went to the spot along with staff and police at about 4.00 p.m. on 05.01.2007. They inspected the installation of R.R. No.NBL 320, which stood in the name of accused No. 1 and found that there is a direct hook from the LT line and consequently the electricity was being used unlawfully, though the meter was already removed. Thus it was prima facie clear that there was theft of electricity by the accused. Complaint came to be lodged by the Assistant Executive Engineer in Crime No. 17/2003 and Crime No.336/2004. After completion of investigation as per law, charge-sheet is filed. Charge were also framed for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Electricity Act.

(3.) However, the only question is relating to sufficiency of quantum of fine. Proviso to sub-section (i) of Section 135 of Electricity Act reads thus: