S MANICKAM Vs. DHANAKOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred by an Officer of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (P.W. 1 in the case) against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Salem, in C. C. No. 2001 of 1979 acquitting the respondents herein (accused) of offences under sections 44 (c) and 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with section 379, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE charge-sheet was laid by the police against the respondent herein (accused 1 and 2) stating that the Electri-city Boar d officials inspected the premises and electric connection meter No. 165 belonging to the first respondeat (first accused) is running business, at 11-30 a.m. , on 10th November, 1978, and found that the said electric connection meter has been tampered with and that there was replacement of original seals by bogus seals with a view to comit theft of electricity. THE prosecution examined five witnesses on its side to prove the theft of energy, tampering of the meter and removal of original seals. THE respondent (accused) denied the offences. THE learned Judicial First Class Magistrate found that the prosecution has not proved which of the two accused had tampered with the meter and seals and that the theft of energy has not been proved beyond any doubt. THE lower Court also relied on the ruling reported in Jagannath Singh v. Krishnamurthy1and held that mere existence of tampered meter does not amount to such artificial means for the abstraction of electricity as Would make it an offence under section 39. Consequently, the accused were given the benefit of doubt and P.W. 1 an officer of the Electricity Board has filed this appeal against acquittal.

(3.) NOW, the learned Magistrate has not properly considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he relied on some extraneous circumstances and held that the prosecution has not proved the theft of energy beyond reasonable doubt. On a perusal of the judgment, I am satisfied that the trial Magistrate has ignored the positive evidence of those official witnesses and their detailed statements about the tampering of the seals in the meter and the made of committing theft of energy. The trial Magistrate accepted that the seals of the meter were tampered with, but found that the mere existence of the tampered meter would not constitute an offence under section 39 or under section 44 (c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. A mere reading of section 39 as a mended by Tamil Nadu Act XXXIX of 1980 would convince one that the prosecution has proved this case to the hilt. Section 39(1) of the Act runs thus-