RAMKISHAN MULCHAND MUNDHADA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Viral Shah for the appellant and Mr. KL Pandya, Ld. APP for the respondent State.

(2.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction by impugned judgment and order dated 16/12/2005 rendered in Special Electricity Case No. 4/2004 by Special Judge [Electricity] and Presiding Officer, FTC No. 9, Bharuch. The appellant has been convicted under section 135[1] [b] of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to deposit Rs. 22,23,831/ - as fine with a direction that if fine is not paid, he has to undergo additional imprisonment of six months. Though charge is under section 138 [1][a] of the Act also, the appellant has been acquitted for the offence under such section.

(3.) CONSIDERING such legal position as aforesaid, I do not intend to enter into factual details since the same is well described in the impugned judgment itself except referring the material facts required for determination of issue as raised hereinabove. If we peruse the record and proceedings as well as the impugned judgment, it is undisputed fact that the appellant is consumer of electricity and alleged incident of theft of electricity was noticed by the officers of the electricity company/GEB when they conducted raid on the premises of the appellant and prepared a panchnama and report of investigation wherein it is stated that it is a case of theft of electricity because of tampering with the seal of the meter for recording consumption of electricity. Based upon the inspection of the meter in question and relying upon the condition of supply of electricity having 120 HP, the GEB had calculated the theft of electricity to the tune of Rs. 7,41,276/ -. The deposition of PW No. 1 at exh. 27, namely Hasmukhbhai Bhikhabhai Modi, Deputy Engineer of GEB, has while confirming the above facts, admitted that out of such alleged amount of theft, on issuance of supplementary bill for the said amount, the appellant has deposited 50% of such bill i.e. Rs. 3,70,638/ -, but on getting permission from higher authorities, he has lodged the complaint and thereafter, he proved relevant documentary evidence on record. In cross -examination, he has to admit that theft was noticed on 4/2/2004, whereas complaint was lodged on 6/3/2004 i.e. after 3 weeks and that supplementary bill was issued after 2 days. He has also admitted the contents of letter dated 7/4/2005 issued by GEB confirming that the appellant has paid 50% amount of the supplementary bill and that as per decision in the appeal, remaining amount of Rs. 1,22,681/ - is paid by the appellant on 1/12/2004 and thereafter, balance amount to be paid by the appellant is nil. Therefore, practically out of the supplementary bill of Rs. 7,41,276 : 93 ps., appellant has already paid Rs. 4,93,319 : 91 ps.