NARAYANA HURKAT ALIAS NARAYANA MAHESHWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are A-1 and A-2 in the crime seek to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.29 of 2002 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Tribunal Constituted under the Indian Electricity (A.P. amendment) Act, 2000, Hyderabad.

(2.) The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & ARTS Team-I, A.P. Transco, Hyderabad, laid the charge sheet against the petitioners under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for brevity 'the Act'). It was alleged inter alia that the Assistant Divisional Engineer/DPE-II/Hyderabad (south)/APCPDCL visited the premises of the petitioners on 15-9-2000 at 16.00 hours and noticed that rubber product industry was being run therein underthe name and style of "M/s. Ganesh Industry". The premises was given a service connection bearing No.M2-5137/III. One Kasinath Adikari represented to be the worker in the factory was present and in his presence the ADE observed the meter and found the meter box seal was tampered and the sealing wire was freely coming out from the seal bit. After opening the meter box, he further noticed that two numbers seals on the right side of meter cover were also tampered. He then tested the meter on load conditions and removed the meter box seal without cutting the seal wire and seized in a sealed cover. The meter box was also sealed with DPE seal and then the meter box was referred for MRT testing and on such testing it was found the seals 109195, 196 intact and also the C.T. box seal. He further found C.T. chamber left side seal bits and right side seal bits in tact. However meter cover right side seal bits were found with bulging marks on one side of the seal bit i.e. sealing wire was removed and inserted. Under the above circumstances, he was of the view that the consumer has meddled with the meter mechanism to suppress the actual consumption and thereby pilferaged the power. The loss was temporarily estimated at Rs.3,15,510/-. On a complaint given by him, the crime was registered and investigated into, and eventually the charge sheet was laid.

(3.) It is the contention of Sri D. V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that excepting the opinion of the MRT laboratory that the meter cover right side seal bits No.H-44850, 44852 with the impression APSEB/MRT-Y/1230 were having bulging marks on one side of the seal bit, nothing more was alleged against the petitioners as to how they indulged in dishonest abstraction or consumption or use of energy as envisaged under Section 39 of the Act and as to how the petitioner interfered with the meters using the energy as envisaged under Section 44 of the Act. It is his further contention that the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet do not fulfill the basic ingredients of either Section 39 or Section 44 of the Act.