RAJU ALIAS RAJE GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (hereinafter referred as 'accused No.1') and his father (hereinafter referred as 'accused No.2') were tried for offences punishable under sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Act'). The learned trial Judge acquitted accused No.2 and convicted accused No.1 for offences punishable under sections 135 and 138 of the Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.2,00,600/ -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for an offence punishable under section 135 of the Act. Accused No.1 has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Act. Therefore, accused No.1 has filed this appeal.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for accused No.1 and learned HCGP for State.

(3.) IT is the case of prosecution that accused No.1 being the registered consumer of installation bearing No.BKP 17, installed to his flour mill had dishonestly connected 'R' phase to load wire, bypassing meter and abstracted electric energy. Accused No.1 had removed seal of meter to connect 'R' phase to load wire and prevented meter from recording consumption of electric energy through bypassed wire.