(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 11.06.2007. passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Dhule, in Special Case No.l 1 of 2005.
(2.) The case of the prosecution in short is as under:
(3.) The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and therefore after recording evidence and hearing arguments and after framing the points, the Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to suffer simple witnesses to see the result of the case, on complaint filed by their department. Therefore, merely relying on their evidence, no conviction can be sustained. On careful perusal of the original record I find thatpanchanamaExh.6 is not proved by the prosecution. There is no discussion in the impugned judgment about the said pancanama. There is no exercise of calculating how much units have been consumed and how figure of Rs.14,100/-towards compensation has been arrived by the learned Judge. There is no basis to assume that, electricity is consumed five hours in a day.