JEET PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the judgment dated 4-3-1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge. Delhi in Crl. Appeal No.42/95 affirming the conviction of petitioners/accused under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act of which they had been convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and sentenced in consequence to rigorous imprisonment for six months as wall as a fine of Rs.5000.00 each, the sentence in default of payment of fine being simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) Shorn of verbiage, the prosecution case is that on 14.8.1989, a raid was conducted by the Special Cell of DESU consisting of the Supdt. R.N.Maini (Public Witness 2), S.S.Gupta (Public Witness 3) and R.K.Anand (Public Witness 1) at the building bearing No.618 Dr. Mukherjee Nagar and it was found that the accused persons were committing theft of electrical energy from their domestic lighting meters for industrial purpose and it was also noticed that this theft was being committed with the help of a shunt wire from the incoming terminal to the outgoing terminals of phase wires vide inspection report (Ex PW1/B). On 15.8.1989, R.K.Anand (Public Witness 1) lodged the FIR (Ex PW1/A) at the P.S.Mukherjee Nagar to the same effect. Investigation thereafter followed. On completion of the investigation, the accused persons were put on trial. Both the Trial Court as well as the appellate court on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the accused persons are guilty of the offence punishable U/s 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and it is the correctness of that finding which is being assailed in the present revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners assails correctness of the impugned order of conviction on the ground that the same suffers from the vice of non-consideration of evidence and non-application of judicial mind. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that the revision involved only appreciation of evidence and this court may not interfere with the findings of facts resulting from appreciation of evidence. It is true that in a revision U/s 401 Cr.P.C.court does not normally re-appreciate the evidence by itself and go into the question of credibility of the witnesses and the assessment of the evidence by the Courts below is accepted by this Court as final unless, of course, the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by an error of law of procedure, misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the courts below are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. The jurisdiction vested in this Court u/s 401 Cr.PC is not to be confused with an ordinary statutory appellate jurisdiction.