STATE Vs. JOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the acquittal of the 3rd accused by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Ponneri in C.C.No.135 of 1983. The first accused is an electrician in Sridevi Mill Limited. The second accused is the foreman and the third accused is the owner. The allegation against the accused is that on 10.4.1983 when the electric motor in the said company was inspected, it was found that the meter had been tampered with and the meter disc was running anti-clockwise instead of clockwise, and that indicate that the accused were committing theft of electric energy, and therefore, they are punishable under Sac.39of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The accused all pleaded not guilty. The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case found that the 2nd accused alone is guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He acquitted accused 1 and 3. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the 3rd accused, the State has preferred this appeal.

(2.) IT is argued that the court below has found that there was tampering with the meter. That being the case, the third accused, the owner of the company, who alone would stand to gain by the said tampering of the meter should have been found guilty and his acquittal is wrong. IT is in evidence that at the time of inspection of 10.4.1983 at 10.30 a.m. only the 2nd accused was present. Neither the 1st accused not the third accused was present. According to the 3rd accused, he was not at all aware of any tampering of the meter as alleged. May be there was tampering of the meter and the meter was running anti-clockwise instead of clockwise, but the question is whether the 3rd accused was responsible for it. As stated above, the accused was not present at the time of inspection. IT is not in evidence that any time before also there was such tampering of meter. If there was tampering of meter, just for the reason that the 3rd accused was the owner of the company and it may be that he alone would stand to gain, it cannot be said that really he was responsible for tampering of the meter. In this connection the learned Government Advocate cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Jagannath Singh alias Jainath Singh, Sohari Lal v. B.S.Ramasamy, now Krishnamurthy and another, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 849: 1966 Crl.L.J. 697: 1966 S.C.D. 531: 1966 M.W.N.213:1966 S.C.W.R. 266: (1966)1 S.C.R. 885. On a careful reading of this judgment it appears to me that far from supporting the prosecution, it helps the third accused. In paragraph 8 of the judgment it has been stated thus: