AREKIPUDI SANKARA RAO Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he has to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, after he was convicted for the offence under Section 39 of the Indian electricity Act, 1910 (for short 'the Act')read with Section 379 of I. P. C. In appeal, the conviction and sentence have been confirmed. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this revision.

(2.) THE revision is filed mainly on the following grounds; Firstly, that the prosecution had failed to prove that the petitioner was the consumer or owner/possessor of the fish tank where the electric energy was being pilfered. Secondly, that the prosecution has not complied with Section 50 of the Act and thirdly, that there was an abnormal unexplained delay in filing the First information Report and lastly, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 was inconsistent and discrepant.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution as narrated by the Courts below was that on 5. 3. 1995 at 2. 25 p. m. , PW-1 and his staff inspected the fish tank of the petitioner/ accused. During the inspection, it was observed that the accused was pilfering electrical energy by directly tapping the l. T. 3 Phase 4 wire over head line by means of PVC SC Alluminium wire through Switch Board for pumping-in water into the fish tank with 5 HP and 7 HP motors. The accused, therefore, caused loss of revenue to the APSE Board and the loss was estimated to the time of rs. 1,07,575/ -. After inspection, PW-1 prepared a report and gave it to the inspector of Police, Vijayawada, who registered a case as Crime No. 6 of 1995 under Section 39 of the Act and took up investigation. During the investigations, statements of witnesses were recorded and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed.