HARISADHAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated February 17, 2005 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court Purulia in Electricity G.R. case No. 65 of 2004 under Sec. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and Sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code, convicting the petitioner to suffer R.I. for 2 years and also liable to pay a fine in default of payment of fine of Rs.1,000.00i.d to suffer further R.I. for 2 months.

(2.) A complaint was lodged to the Officer-in-Charge Neturia Police Station, District Purulia on January 20, 2003 by Assistant Engineer, Raghunathpur W.B.S.E.B, Purulia against the present appellant alleging that on that date at about 2 P.M. to 2.30 P.M the said complainant along with two other officials in co-operation with local Police Station held inspection of the house of the present appellant having consumer NO. A-500 278 which was disconnected on 26/11/2002 for outstanding dues of Rs.2693.00 for the posted (SIC) 9/0027/02, and found act of consuming and using electric energy dishonestly from the L.T. lines of Neturia village by way of hooking and causing loss of the revenue to the tune of Rs.4000..00 It was further alleged that the appellant also caused mischief to the board's property as enunciated in Sec. 3 (2) (a) of Act III/84 (Prevention to the damage of Public Property). On the basis of such complaint the Neturuia P.S. case 4/03 dated January 20, 2003 under Sec. 31 I.E. Act along with Sec. 379 IPC started and on completion of the investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the present appellant. The Learned Special Court framed the charges under Sec. 39 I.E. Act and Sec. 379 of Indian Penal Code on 3rd day of December, 2003.

(3.) The Learned Advocate representing the appellant argued that the Learned Trial Court failed to consider that there are discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the witnesses and in absence of any satisfactory evidence on record to prove the reasonable doubt but despite that the Learned Trial Court passed such order of conviction. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution and it is evident from the evidence that no attempt was made to identify the house where the raid was conducted as to whether it belong to the appellant or not. It is further argued that the Learned Judge did not consider that the prosecution failed to prove that the hooking was at all was done by the appellant for his house and further P.W. 3 stated that the house belong to one Bankim Pandey. The seizure list was not prepared at the place of occurrence as alleged but at the Police Station which was also not considered by the Learned Trial Court. Lastly the Learned Judge did not follow any of the established principles relating to examination of the accused person under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal.