INSPECTOR OF POLICE Vs. KONAKANALA KRISHNA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS, APSEB, Guntur, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, had preferred the present criminal appeal as against the order of acquittal recorded in CC No.13 of 1998 on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala.

(2.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would contend that the acquittal recorded on the ground of non-examination of the Investigating Officer cannot be sustained, if otherwise there is acceptable evidence on record, this view expressed by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be one recorded in accordance with law. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would contend that the circumstances amply prove that respondent-accused has indulged in pilfering the energy deliberately and knowingly and hence Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act') had been contravened and respondent-accused is liable to be punished under the said provisions. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had also pointed out to the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and also Exs.P1 to P18 and MOs.1 and 2.

(3.) Per contra, Sri K. Ananda Rao, learned Counsel representing respondent- accused would contend that the evidence of PWs.l and 2 is to the effect that they received written complaint from one lady by name Vidyullatha of Dachepalli relating to the pilferage and the said Vidyullatha was not examined. The learned Counsel also had pointed out the other discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The Counsel would submit that the Investigating Officer was not examined and that is not the only ground on which acquittal had been recorded. Apart from this aspect of the matter the learned Counsel would also submit that in view of the fact that Section 50 of the Act would be applicable to these offences, inasmuch as the prosecution failed to prove that prosecution had been launched at the instance of one of the persons mentioned in Section 50 of the Act, especially in the light of the absence of the evidence of Investigating Officer the acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate is well justified.