MOHD SIDIQ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal second appeal which has been a stated as revision is directed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under section 353/379 R.P.C recorded by the Judicial Matgistrate 1st Class, Pulwamma. The accused petitioner have been ordered to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 353 R.P.C. and six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ - each for offence under section 379 R.P.C.

(2.) THE fact giving rise to this revision petition are that the Revenue clerk of the Electric Department along with some staff went about to collect the electric dues from the defaulting consumers of the village Mitrigam. On 17.02.1977, they disconnected the lines of some of the consumers including the father of the petitioners. The appellants, it is alleged, resented this action of the staff of the Electric department. They attacked the revenue clerk and others and also beat the Revenue clerk on spot. A receipt Book and a ledger were also snatched away from the Revenun clerk. The matter was reported to the police on 18 -2 -1977 and case was registered. The investigation in the case revealed that the accused were guilty of offence under section 353/379 R. P. C. The police submitted a charge sheet before the magistrat who after recording the evidence in the case convicted and sentenced the petitioners as mentioned above. On appeal before the sessions Judge Anantnag, the conviction and sentences of the petitioners were up -held by the lower appellate court.

(3.) IN this revision it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court has returned findings on no evidence. The court has presumed that the Assistant Engineer has issued orders for dis -connection of the electric supply, although there is absolutely no evidence to support this findings. The Assistant Engineer was not cited as a witness in the case and the order of dis -connection was not proved at all in the case. Attention is invited to section 24 of the Electricity Act, which provides seven days advance notice ,to the defaulting consumer if the department intends to cut the .supply line. No such notice was given in the present case and,, therefore, act of dis -connecting the line was unauhorised. Then if we believe the prosecution story that the accused had assaulted public servants it cannot be said that the latter were discharging their duties according to law as no earlier notice had been issued to the petitioners. It is further alleged that the stolen property i. e. Receipt Book and Ledger were not identified by any prosecution witness in the court nor was this property ever produced in the court. Even up to this time, nothing is known about the disposal of the property. Non -production and non -identification of the seized property raised a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution cases. The charges framed in the case were also faulty and it has seriously prejudiced the case of the accused petitioners. All the material witnesses for the prosecution were not examined before the trial magistrate. Learned counsel has further submitted that no question in regard to the material circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused were put to them by the trial court and this has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners in -as much as the accused were mis -lead and could not put up their defence in respect of these circumstances. They were not given any chance to explain the circumstances appearing against them in evidence. Omission to put meterial questions to the accused vitiated the conviction of the petitioners.