NINGAPPA Vs. STATE THROUGH KPTCL VIGILANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused challenging the order in Spl. Case No. 121/2008 rendered by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act 2003 R/w. Section 379 of IPC. Alleging illegal connection and drawing of electricity to run the flour mill, the Assistant Engineer of GESCOM, Gulbarga along with his staff has conducted the raid at Manjalpur Camp in Shorapur taluk. On 24.01.2007 around 5.00 p.m., they conducted the mahazar and estimated the theft of electricity to the tune of Rs. 23,639/- to the KPTCL and thereby appellant/accused committed the above said offence. After investigation by the panchas, the charge sheet was filed. The police also have seized the wires which were used for illegal direct connection of line. The complaint was lodged and after the seizure, the police took up further investigation and after filing of the charge sheet, the charge was framed against the appellant/accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution having examined about six witnesses as PWs. 1 to 6, got marked 6 documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 6 and also one material object was got marked. PW. 1 is the Assistant Engineer who is the complainant and also leader of the raiding party who has spoken about conducting the raid, filing of the complaint and direct connection of electricity to the flour mill without obtaining the licence.

(2.) Pw. 2 is the mahazar witness who has supported the seizure of the wires used for illegal connection. PW. 3 is the lineman, who has disconnected the line. PW. 4 is the police constable, who was accompanied the complainant at the time of raid and he also supported the case of the prosecution. PW. 5 is the head constable who registered the case. PW. 6 is the inspector who conducted the investigation. All of them have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the theft of electricity by illegal connection and also that the appellant/accused is running flour mill and total loss caused is Rs. 23,639/-.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader and on going through the evidence on record, it is noticed that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant/accused. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that all the witnesses are interested and no independent witness has been examined. It is seen that the complainant is the Assistant Engineer who was not an interested person in the department and nothing is elicited to disbelieve his version. Hence, his evidence has to be believed so also all other witnesses like lineman who disconnected the wires. The sentence of imprisonment is modified. The appellant/accused is permitted to compound the offence by remitting three times of Rs. 23,600/- (23,600 x 3 = 70,800) Rs. 70,800/- in three installments within one year from the date of this order. The order to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs. 10,000/- is set aside. It is for the appellant/accused to remit the amount as indicated above to the respondent-KPTCL.