Sri G.S Ramesh Kumar

1 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

THE CASES UNDER THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC

SUBSTANCES ACT-Cum-I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:

NELLORE

Monday, this the 28th day of March, 2022

Present:- G.S. RAMESH KUMAR,

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

N.D.P.S. SESSIONS CASE No.1/2017

(Cr.No.117/2014 of Chittamuru Police Station)

1Nameofthe:State: Inspector of Police, Vakadu ComplainantCircle.

Yalamanchili Ramakondala Rao @ 2Name of the accused: Ramu, S/o. Satya Rao, Age: 23 years, Kapu by caste, Madugula Koduru village, Vizag District.

3Charge:U/S. 8 (c) read with 20(b) (ii) (C) of N.D.P.S. Act.

4Plea of Accused:Pleaded not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Found guilty :IN THE RESULT, the accused is found 6Sentence or Order guilty for the offence under Section 8© read with 20(b) (ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act, and he is convicted under Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 8© read with 20(b) (ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo 2 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017 rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in default, rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 8 (c) read with 20(b) (ii) (C) of N.D.P.S Act. The remand period already undergone by the accused for 66 days I.e from 30.09.2015 to 4.12.2015 shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property i.e. Black colour Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP16 AA 4658 shall be confiscated to State, as no one claimed the car and the unmarked property i.e. 315 Kgs of ganja, shall be destroyed, subject to the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution is conducted by Sri D. Ramana Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor, Nellore.

Accused is defended by Sri B. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Nellore.

This case coming on 16.03.2022 for final hearing before me and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Vakadu Circle, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.8 (c) read with 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985( for short ‘NDPS’ Act) in Cr.No.117/2014 of Chittamuru Police Station.

3 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

On 12.12.2014 at 10.00 hrs, P.W.1, who is Tahsildar of

Chittamuru Mandal received information by P.W.2 about one car was parked by unknown persons at Yallasiri village of Chittamuru Mandal, in suspicious circumstances, immediately P.W.1 visited the place and checked the abandoned vehicle Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP 26 AA 4658 and it is locked. Then P.W.1 opened the car doors with the assistance of mechanic in the presence of P.W.2 and L.W.3, found 142 packets of ganja each packet containing approximately 2 to 3 Kgs of ganja, then P.W.1 seized the property of ganja along with car in the presence of mediators P.W.2 and L.W.3 and also prepared mahazarnama, P.W.1 got weighed the ganja and found 317.415 Kgs and packed all 142 bundles of ganja in the presence of mediators and handed over the same along with car to P.W.5 together with his report attested by the mediators for further proceedings.

Basing on the mediators report of P.W.1, P.W.5 registered a case in Cr.No.117/2014 under Section 20(B) of N.D.P.S Act on 12.12.2014 at 17.00 hrs and sent the coy of F.I.R to L.W.7, who is In-charge of

Vakadu circle, for investigation, as it is a special case.

During the course of investigation, P.W.7 sent the sample of ganja to F.S.L., Hyderabad, for expert opinion. In this case, the accused given confession statement at the time of arrest at Manubolu Police station, as he was involved in this case and left the car at the scene of 4 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017 offence with the packets of ganja and the accused was arrested and sent to remand by the Inspector of Police, Gudur Rural i.e. P.W.6. As per confession statement of accused, he was produced on PT warrant before

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur. The accused obtained

bail from the Hon’ble Additional District Judge’s Court, Nellore. The property of ganja bags and car bearing No.AP 16 AA-4658 were kept in police station, Chittamuru for police custody.

During the course of investigation, L.W.6- V.R. Gunasheela,

Asst.Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad opined that was “analysed and cannabin an active constituent of well grown cannabis plaint commonly known as ganja, which is considered as Narcotic substance is found in it. The morphological characters of leaves, flowering tops and seeds in the above items are found to be that of cannabis sativa”. After completion of investigation, L.W.10-P. Akkeswara

Rao, Inspector of Police, Vakadu filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 20(B) of N.D.P.S. Act.

3. Cognizance taken under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of

N.D.P.S. Act against the accused.

4.After appearance of Accused, charge under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (C) of N.D.P.S. Act, was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 are marked.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of L.W.3-Yallasiri Venkataiah, L.W.6-V.R. Gunasheela, Asst.

Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, and closed the prosecution side evidence.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material made out against him, for which, he denied the prosecution evidence and when the accused was asked to enter upon into defence, he reported no defence evidence, but got marked Ex.D1-161 Cr.P.C.

statement of P.W.1.

8.Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

9. Now, the points that arise for consideration are :

(1) Whether the accused was found in possession and transportation of Ganja of 317.415 Kgs, in Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP 26 AA 4658, in contravention of provisions of N.D.P.S. Act?

(2)Whether the prosecution has bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

6 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

10.POINT No.1 :

(1) Whether the accused was found in possession and transportation of Ganja of 317.415 Kgs, in Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP 26 AA 4658 in contravention of provisions of N.D.P. S. Act?

On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 are examined.

P.W.1 is the Tahsildar-cum-Complainant.

P.W.2 is the mediator.

P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the independent witnesses.

P.W.5 to P.W.8 are the Investigation Officers.

11.According to P.W.5, on 12.12.2014 on credible information about a parked car, he requested P.W.1 to come and act as mediator,

P.W.1, P.W.2 and L.W.3 went to the scene of offence directly, and this

P.W.5 along with his staff also went to the scene of offence, and found black colour Ford Fiesta bearing No.AP 16 AA 4658, they tried to open the car, but the doors were locked, and with the assistance of villagers, they opened the doors of the car and found a packed polythene cover blue in colour, and opened the said car, found 142 packets, and he opened one packet and found the contents in the packet is ganja, then he brought the weighing machine with the assistance of villagers and weighed the said packets, the total quantity is 317.415 Kgs. P.W.1 prepared mediatornama and handed over the same to this P.W.5, who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.117/2014 under Section 20(b) of N.D.P.S Act and issued 7 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

F.I.R/Ex.P4, thereafter, he handed over the file to Inspector for further investigation.

12.Further, the P.W.1 also stated that on 12.12.2014, the

L.W.7(P.W.5) informed him that one car was parked at Maseedu Center and requested to come there to verify the contents inside the car. The

P.W.1 further stated that he himself, P.W.2 and L.W.3 went to the place, where the car was parked, by that time, the P.W.5 and other police were also there, they opened the car and found blue colour polythene covers in a bag and they opened the polythene cover and found ganja in the above said polythene cover, 142 in number. Her also weighed each polythene cover and they are about 2 to 3 Kgs approximately, in total 317 and odd

Kgs of ganja, then he collected samples and handed over the same to

P.W.5, he also seized the remaining property, labelled the same and handed over to P.W.5. The car bearing No.AP 26 AA 4658, black colour

Ford Fiesta.

13.The P.W.1 further stated that they conducted all the above proceedings under preparation of mahazar drafted by P.W.2 on his dictation. He also handed over the said mahazar- to P.W.5. The mahazar is Ex.P1.

14.The P.W.2, V.R.O. also stated in his evidence that on 12.12.2014, P.W.1 asked him to come at M.R.O. Office. The P.W.1 8 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017 informed them to act as mediator at request of police, then all of them rushed to Maseedu Center, by that time, the police were also there, and they opened the car in suspicious circumstances, the doors of the car locked, they tried to open the doors and found blue colour polythene cover, opened the said car and found ganja in the said packets. They also secured P.W.3 and P.W.4, who are mediators at the scene of offence, thereafter, the P.W.1 and P.W.5 brought the weighing machine, weighed the ganja and found 317 Kgs and odd in 142 packets. They seized the ganja and handed over to P.W.5 under preparation of mahazar. He also attested in the said mahazar. He identified his signature. Thereafter, they returned from there, on the next day, again, at request of police, he himself and L.W.3 went to the scene of offence. The C.I. of Police, who is P.W.6, conducted observation of scene of offence and prepared scene observation report. He himself and L.W.3 attested the said mahazar. The witness identified his signature in the said mahazar and he was also examined by the police.

15.Accordingly, the above evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and

P.W.5 are corroborating with each other and supported the case of prosecution.

16.Further, the P.W.3, an independent witness stated that about 6 years back, on one day, M.R.O. and V.R.O., who are P.W.1 and P.W.2, asked him to come at Maseedu center, he went there along with P.W.4, 9 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

P.W.1 and P.W.2, and L.W.3, and the police with the assistance of this

P.W.3 and P.W.4, opened the doors of the car and found some packets in the car. The M.R.O. opened the said packets and found ganja in the said packet. He do not know how many packets are there, he do not know the quantity of ganja. The P.W.1 prepared mahazar. But, he stated in cross- examination that he is an illiterate, he did not weigh the ganja. The P.W.1 and P.W.5 weighed the ganja.

17.Whereas P.W.4, another independent witness also stated that on 12.12.2014, police, M.R.O. and V.R.O came at Maseed Center, and they verified the car parked there, for the last two days. The M.R.O. with the assistance of villagers, opened the doors of the car and found some packets, they opened the packets. The M.R.O.,P.W.1 and P.W.5 found ganja, the P.W.2,V.R.O. asked him to weigh the ganja, then he himself and P.W.3 brought the weighing machine from the neighbouring house and weighed the ganja in 142 packets and the total weight is 317.415 Kgs.

Then Ex.P1 mahazar was prepared by P.W.1. Thereafter, the police taken away the said property from there. He also stated that he was examined by the police on the next day. Accordingly, the above evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 is also clearly corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also supported the evidence of P.W.5 and the case of prosecution.

18.The P.W.7, the Investigation Officer stated in his evidence that he received a copy of F.I.R from P.W.5 and took up investigation, he sent 10 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017 sample of ganja to RFSL for analysis and also tried to apprehend the accused. He further stated that he secured the presence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and visited the scene of offence, conducted observation of scene of offence, and drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also drawn samples of ganja kept in the car, got weighed the same in 142 packets, the total ganja is 317.415 Kgs. The observation report is Ex.P2 and the rough sketch of the scene of offence is Ex.P6. He also examined and recorded the statements of P.W.2 to P.W.4 and L.W.3. He brought the car and property to police station, thereafter, further investigation was taken up by P.W.8.

19.The P.W.8 stated in his evidence that he took up investigation from P.W.7, he verified the investigation of P.W.7 and he also received chemical analysis report, which is Ex.P7 and he also produced the accused before the Court on P.T. warrant and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. He further stated that the property was destroyed as per orders of the Court and the photographs are-4 in number along with C.D of the property was filed. They were marked as Ex.P8.

20.Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are supporting with each other regarding with detection of the case, seizure of property and car and also drawing of samples and receipt of report from

Analyst and production of accused before the Court and also in respect of 11 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017 visit of scene of offence, preparation of observation report and rough sketch etc.

21.Ex.P7,chemical analysis report also shows that the contents of the ganja, which is narcotic substance is found in it. The morphological characters of leaves, flowering tops and seeds in the above items are found to be that of cannabis sativa.

22.Accordingly, the above evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, P.W.7 and

P.W.8 are not only corroborating with each other, but also consistent with

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 to Ex.P8.

23.Further, the P.W.6 is also one of the Investigation Officers, he stated about apprehension of the accused. According to him, on 16.09.2015, he reviewed the further investigation in Cr.No.77/2015 of

Manubolu P.S and received credible information about the accused and he secured Tahsildar and also other mediators, reached to main road,

Buja Buja Nellore to Nellore and found the accused, caught hold him, on enquiry, the accused confessed the offence, he got recorded the confession of the accused including the offence in Cr.No.117/2014 of

Chittamuru P.S i.e. the case on hand. He further stated that the accused also informed about the car left there and escape of accused on seeing the police etc in this case. He arrested the accused and sent him for remand. The attested copy of the confession and arrest mahazar is 12 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

Ex.P5.

24.In view of the above evidence of P.W.6 and on perusal of

Ex.P5 confession, it is very clear that the accused not only confessed the offence in this case, but also confessed his involvement in so many other cases for the offence under N.D.P.S. Act i.e. possession and transportation of ganja. He also confessed that he is remanded to judicial custody in number of cases and after release on bail, again, he committed the similar offences of possession, transportation and sale of ganja and he also confessed the transportation of ganja in this case in a car bearing No.AP 16 AA 4658 along with its driver and they left the car at the scene of offence etc.

25.Accordingly, the above evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.P5, it leads the production of this accused before the Court on P.T. warrant and also leads to recovery of ganja from the car left by him at the scene of offence prior to his arrest. Accordingly, the evidence of all P.W.1 to P.W.8 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 are clearly corroborating with each other and supported the case of prosecution.

26.The learned counsel for defence contended that there is discrepancy regarding with registration number of the car. The P.W.1 stated that the registration number of the car is AP 26 AA 4658 black colour Ford Fiesta Car. The P.W.5 also stated the same number. The 13 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

P.W.7 and P.W.8 also stated the same number. In the cross-examination of

P.W.8, he stated that there is mentioning of car number as AP 26 AB 4658.

Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.8 are contradictory and their testimony is liable to be discarded.

27.All the above said contentions of the learned counsel for defence is not at all acceptable. He himself elicited the registration number of the car in the cross-examination of P.W.8, who admitted that there is mentioning of car bearing No.AP 26 AB 4658, in continuation, the

P.w.8 voluntarily stated that AA is wrongly mentioned as ‘AB’ due to mistake and oversight. The Ex.P8 photographs of the car also shows the number of the car is AP 26 AA 4658 black colour Ford Fiesta. No doubt in

Ex.P1, the AP 16 AA 4658 is mentioned, whereas P.W.1 stated in chief- examination itself AP 26 AA 4658 and P.W.5 stated that AP 16 AA 4658.

28.However, in confession of the accused as well as in the evidence of P.W.6, the registration number of the car is mentioned as AP 26 AA 4658, but still the property is in possession of the Court. It may be ordered to keep in the premises of the police station for safe custody.

Ex.P8-photographs of the property clearly shows that the registration number is AP 16 AA 4658 only and moreover, the car is Ford Fiesta black in colour and so far, no one claimed the said car. However, the said discrepancy in the car number is not the material part of the case. The said discrepancy does not create any shadow or doubt on the reliability of 14 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017 the testimony of P.W.1 to P.w.8 and it is also not necessary for the prosecution to prove the ownership of the said car, as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2020 (2) A.L.D. (Crl) 1019 (SC), wherein it is held that “merely because of ownership of the vehicle is not established and proved and or vehicle is not recovered subsequently, the trial is not vitiated.” Here, the vehicle is recovered, but the ownership of the vehicle is not proved. The same is not at all fatal to the case of prosecution.

29.Further, the learned Counsel for defence contended that P.W.1 denied a portion of his 161 Cr.P.C statement under Ex.D1. The Ex.D1 said to be recorded by P.W.7. He stated that he examined and recorded the statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and L.W.2 and P.W.1. He also stated that the P.W.1 stated before him as in Ex.D1, which is 161 Cr.P.C statement of

P.W.1. The said Ex.D1 under 161 Cr.P.C. statement is of no use to the defence, since Ex.P1 mahazar is established and proved. Hence, there is no scope for the said contention of the learned counsel for defence.

30.Further, the Counsel for defence also contended that there is discrepancy regarding with date. It is mentioned in Ex.P6 that the date if 12.12.2014 and it is mentioned in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 that the date of observation of scene of offence and seizure of property and preparation of Ex.P6 was made on 12.12.2015. There is change of year and hence, the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.1 and P.W.2 can not be believed.

15 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

31.The above said contention of the learned Counsel for defence is also not at all acceptable since the P.W.7 voluntarily added in the evidence in his cross-examination that the said date is wrongly mentioned by mistake. The said explanation of P.W.7 is satisfactory. There is every possibility to commit such minor mistakes in general. Here, the mistake is regarding with year 2014 and 2015. But the date and month are one and same. When the said mistake crept in mentioning the year in Ex.P6, which is satisfactorily explained by P.W.7, the question of doubting his testimony does not arise.

32.In view of the above discussed evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.8 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, it is clear that the accused along with the driver possessed and transported the ganja in a car bearing No.AP 16 AA 4658 and left the said car at the scene of offence, due to repairs. The driver went to Naidupet to bring the mechanic, this accused waited at the car till evening, but the driver did not turn up and this accused due to fear of police, left from the scene of offence. The said car and the property i.e.

ganja was detected and recovered by the police with the help of P.W.1 to

P.W.5 and also proved that the said contraband is ganja, which is narcotic substance. The transportation, possession and sale of said contraband by the accused with the help of driver of the car in contravention of provisions of N.D.P.S Act is hereby established and proved. Hence, the above point

No.1 is answered accordingly.

16 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

33.POINT No.2: -

Whether the prosecution has bring home the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

Based on the findings on point No.1, it is clear that the prosecution has bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 8 (c) read with 20(b) (ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act beyond all reasonable doubt and this Court found that the accused is guilty for the above said offence.

34.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 8© read with 20(b) (ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act, and he is convicted under Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 8© read with 20(b) (ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2022.

Sd/- G. S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

35.When questioned the convict regarding quantum of sentence, he reported that he has nothing to say and hence the accused is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also sentenced 17 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017 to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in default,

rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section

8 (c) read with 20(b) (ii) (C) of N.D.P.S Act.

36.The remand period already undergone by the accused for 66 days I.e from 30.09.2015 to 4.12.2015 shall be given set off under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

37.The unmarked property i.e. Black colour Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP16 AA 4658 shall be confiscated to State, as no one claimed the car and the unmarked property i.e. 315 Kgs of ganja, shall be destroyed, subject to the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2022.

Sd/- G. S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 : T.Venkata Suneel Kumar, Tahsildar, Chittamuru Mandal.

P.W.2 : K.Venkateswarlu, V.R.O., Yallasiri village of Chittamur (M) 18 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

P.W.3 : Ch. Krishnaiah

P.W.4 : J. Ramaiah

P.W.5 : M. Ravi Nayak, S.I. of Police, Chittamuru P.S.

P.W.6 : P. Srinivasulu Reddy, Inspector of Police, Gudur Rural

P.W.7 : M. Rathaiah, Inspector of Police, Naidupet

P.W.8 : P. Akkeswara Rao, Inspector of Police, Vakadu.

For Defence: None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: -

Ex.P.1: Mahazarnama dated 12.12.2014

Ex.P.2: Scene observation report dated 13.12.2014

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

Ex.P4 : First Information Report in Cr.No.117/2014

Ex.P5 : Attested copy of confession mahazar dated 15.09.2015.

Ex.P6 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P7 : Forensic Science Laboratory report.

Ex.P8 : Photos (4 in number) with C.D.

For Defence:

Ex.D1 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

N I L

Sd/- G. S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

19 NDPS S.C.No.1/2017

Copy submitted to: -

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Nelapadu, Amaravathi.

Copies to:

2.The District Collector, Nellore.

3.The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

4. The Inspector of Police, Vakadu circle.

5.The Special Public Prosecutor, Nellore.

//True copy//

NDPS Sessions Case No.1/2017

1 CC 10/2018

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: NELLORE.

Present: - SRI G.S. RAMESH KUMAR

I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Monday, this the 28th day of March, 2022

A.P.T.S. C.C.No.10 of 2018

COMPLAINANT NAMES AND DESCRIPTION OF

ACCUSED

State – Sub-Inspector of Police,Kaliki Siva Sankar Reddy, S/o. Vigilance & APTS Police StationNiranjan Reddy, Age: 26 years, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Nellore.Mungamur village, Bogole Mandal, SPSR Nellore District

Charge Section 135 (1)(a)(b) of The Electricity Act, 2003 (two counts)

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the judge Found not guilty

Sentence or order

ORDER : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 135 (1) (a)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property i.e. 5 meters black colour AB cable PVC Aluminum wire, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

The Prosecution is conducted by Sri D. Bhanu Raman,

Special Public Prosecutor, Nellore.

Sri P. Uma Maheswar, advocate for the accused.

2 CC 10/2018

This case is coming on 15.03.2022 for final hearing

before me and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance & APTS Police

Station, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Nellore, had filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 135 (1)(a) (b) of Electricity

Act, 2003, in Crime No.460/2018 and 461/2018 of Vigilance & APTS

Police Station, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Nellore.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

On information P.W.1 and P.W.3 along with P.W.5 and

L.W.6-R. Venkateswarlu inspected the premises of the accused on 2.2.2018 at 6.11 hrs near his aqua ponds at Mungamur village,

Bogole Mandal, which is provided with power supply in

S.C.No.3211120000498 under Cat. LT III (A) Industrial normal and found that the accused utilizing power dishonestly by bypassing the

CT meter incoming current with the help of 3 Nos. 25 Sq. MM bunched black colour PVC insulated aluminium wire of about 3 meters directly connected from the DTR LV bushing rods to fuse units outgoing points and fuse cut outs kept open by the accused and thereby indulging in theft of energy valued at Rs.4,75,990/-. P.W.1 prepared inspection report and presented the same to V & APTS P.S 3 CC 10/2018 on 5.02.2018 at 16.11 hrs which L.W.7- G. Bala Brahma Chari, S.I. of

Police as F.I.R in Cr.No.461/2018 under Section 135 (1)(a) (b) of

Electricity Act, issued F.I.R and took up investigation.

On 02.02.2018 at 6.02 hrs on information, P.W.2 along with P.W.3 and mediators P.W.5 and L.W.6-R. Venkateswarlu inspected S.C.No.3211120000491 Cat. LT III (A) Industrial Normal at

Aqua pond of the accused near Mungamuru village, Bogole Mandal and found that the accused was utilizing power dishonestly by bypassing to CT meter incoming with the help of 3 Nos. 25 Sq. MM bunched black colour PVC insulated aluminum wire of about 5 meters in length directly connected from DTR LV bushing rods to fuse units outgoing points and fuse cut outs kept open and thereby caused theft of energy valued at Rs.3,26,533/-. P.W.2 prepared the inspection report and presented the same to V & APTS PS which

L.W.7- G. Balabrahmachari registered as a case in Cr.No.461/2018 under Section 135 (1)(a)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003, issued F.I.R and took up investigation.

P.W.4 inspected the lands in question and issued certificates that the land in which aqua culture is being cultivated by the accused belongs to the junior maternal uncle of the accused.

During the course of investigation, L.W.7 visited the scene of offences in both the cases, examined P.W.1 to P.W.3, served notice to the accused under Section 41 (A) Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.

4 CC 10/2018

As per the provisions laid down in Section 152 (b) of

Electricity Act, 2003, compounding of an offence under sub-section (1) shall be allowed only once for any person/consumer. As such, the accused received police notice with instructions to pay the compounding amount, but he has not paid the same inspite of repeated instructions. Hence the charge.

3.The case was taken on file by this Court under Section 135 (1)(a) (b) of The Electricity Act, 2003.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Charge under Section 135 (1)(a) (b) of The Electricity Act, 2003 (two counts) was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P11. The learned Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.6-R. Venkateswarlu and the prosecution evidence was closed. L.W.7-G. Bala

Brahmachari died and his evidence was closed by this Court.

5 CC 10/2018

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, for which, he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the defence.

9.Now the points for consideration are :

1. Whether the accused had his aqua ponds situated at Mungamuru is provided with power supply in S.C. No.3211120000498 utilizing power dishonestly by bypassing the C.T meter incoming current with the help of 3 numbers of 25 Sq. MM bunched black colour PVC insulated aluminium wire of about 3 meters directly connected from the DTR LV bushing rods to fuse units outgoing points and fuse cut outs kept open by the accused and thereby indulging in theft of energy valued at Rs.4,75,990/-

2. On the same day, the accused dishonestly utilizing the power by passing the he accused utilizing power dishonestly by bypassing the CT meter incoming current with the help of 3 Nos. 25 Sq. MM bunched black colour PVC insulated aluminium wire of about 5 meters in length directly connected from the DTR LV bushing rods to fuse units outgoing points and fuse cut outs kept open by the accused and thereby indulging in theft of energy valued at Rs.3,26,533/-

3. Whether the prosecution has bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

6 CC 10/2018

10. POINT NO. 1 & 2:

P.W.1 to P.W.6 are examined on behalf of the prosecution.

P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the Assistant Engineer and

Additional Sub Divisional Engineer, who detected theft of electricity

energy in two crime numbers, which are 460/2018 and 461/2018.

P.W.3 is the Assistant lineman, who assisted P.W.1 and

P.W.2.

The P.W.4 is the V.R.O, who issued certificates of possessing of the land at the scene of offence with the accused.

P.W.5 is the mediator.

P.W.6 is the Investigation Officer.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are similar, as they are the complainants in both the offences.

12.According to P.W.1, on 2.2.2018 during service inspection, on receipt of information about theft of energy in

S.C.No.491, 494, 498 and 499 at Mungamuru, he himself, P.W.2 reached to the above said service connections, the P.W.2 inspected the service connection No.491 and collected data. The P.W.1 further stated that he inspected the service connection No.498 and found that the energy is bypassed by outgoing wire without connection to 7 CC 10/2018 electricity meter, accordingly, the internal connection is bypassed, then he secured the presence of P.W.4 and L.W.6 and prepared inspection report/Ex.P2 and mediators report/Ex.P3. The loss of the value is assessed at Rs.4,75,999/- and they returned from the scene of offence along with collected material and also M.R.I. data, thereafter, on the next day, he gave complaint Ex.P1 to police. He also stated that he was examined by the police, he also seized black colour wire at the scene of offence, which is used to commit theft of energy. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the inspection report. Ex.P3 is the mediators report.

13.P.W.2 also stated that on 2.2.2018 at about 4.30 a.m., he himself, P.W.1 secured P.W.4 and L.W.6 and rushed to

Mungamuru, in the meanwhile, they also picked up L.W.3 and reached the fish ponds of accused, and inspected one transformer having two service connections 491 and 494 and found that incoming electricity energy at S.C.No.491 was bypassed through 5 meters AB cable wire, the fuses of concerned electricity meters was removed, the electricity was connected directly from bushing rods of transformers by using AB cable wire and thereby committed theft.

14.P.W.2 further stated that he enquired with one person by name Pattan Mannekhan, who is available at the scene of offence and came to know that the fish ponds at the scene of offence are 8 CC 10/2018 cultivating by the accused, then he called for the accused through the above said Pattan Mannekhan, meanwhile, he also prepared inspection report and mediatornama, and he asked the accused after his arrival to the scene of offence and also Pattan Mannekhan to attest the inspection report and mediatornama but they refused, but the P.W.1, L.W.3, L.W.5 and L.W.6 attested. The Local A.E. by name Vasantha Rao also attested in the inspection report, the assessment of loss of energy is at Rs.3,26,000/- and he lodged complaint with the police on 5.02.2018, he was examined by the police. Ex.P4 is the complaint. Ex.P5 is the mediators report. Ex.P6 is the inspection report. He also stated that he seized 5 meters cable wire at the scene of offence and handed over to police.

15.The above evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their chief- examination is also corroborated by P.W.3, Asst. Lineman, who stated that on 2.2.2018, P.W.2 informed him by phone at about 4.30 a.m. and asked him to come to Mungamuru cross roads, he went there at about 5.30 a.m., the P.W.2 picked him up and asked him to show the location of service connection No.491, he brought P.W.2 and shown the location of Service connection No.491, thereafter,

P.W.1 asked him to show the service connection No.498 and he brought P.W.1 at S.C.No.498, thereafter they prepared inspection report. He also attested in inspection report and mediators report.

9 CC 10/2018

16.The P.W.4 is the V.R.O., he stated that he issued certificates for S.No.461, 462, 463 stating that the said survey numbers are belongs to accused. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are the said certificates issued by him.

17.The P.W.5 is said to be the mediator, deposed that on 2.2.2018 at about 4.00 A.M., P.W.2 requested him by phone to come and act as mediator and he went to Vidyuth Bhavan, and boarded in the vehicle of P.W.2 and rushed to the scene of offence along with

P.W.1 at S.C.No.491, and found three wires connected from transformer to fuse carrier and fuses were removed. The P.W.1 and P.W.2 explained to him that where there is such connection from

L.T. line to fuse carrier by removing the fuses, the electricity meter will not show the reading. He further stated that they also went to

S.C.No.498 and found the same thing i.e. connection of three wires from L.T. line to fuse carrier, and the fuses are removed. The electricity meter is not shown the reading.

18.The P.W.2 drafted all the above things in white paper and asked him to attest the same, he also attested in Ex.P2, the

L.W.6 also present along with him and attested in Ex.P2.

19.The P.W.6 is the retired S.I., he was examined by the prosecution since the Investigation Officer L.W.7-Bala Brahmachari 10 CC 10/2018 died. The death certificate also filed, his evidence is closed. In the place of the said deceased I.O., the prosecution examined P.W.6. He also stated that earlier he worked with L.W.7, he can identify the signatures of L.W.7, he also worked in the same police station, when

L.W.7 registered the cases on hand and conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

20.He further stated that on perusal of record, L.W.7 received complaint from P.W.1 and also from P.W.2, and registered the same and issued F.I.R in Cr.No.460/2018 and also in

Cr.No.461/2018. Both the signatures of L.W.7 in the above F.I.Rs are marked as Ex.P9 and Ex.P10. He also stated that L.W.7 investigated the case, visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. He also identified the signature of L.W.7 in the charge sheet is marked as Ex.P11.

21.Based on the above evidence, the learned A.P.P.

contended that the prosecution established and proved the offence against the accused about his committing theft of two electricity service connections belongs to him and thereby the accused is liable to be punished.

11 CC 10/2018

22.Whereas the learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove their case and he also contended that these cases are falsely registered and foisted against the accused, due to the differences between the accused and one

Vasantha Rao, local A.E. as the said A.E. demanded money from the accused for shifting of the transformer from road side to scene of offence and he also contended that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is contradictory to the evidence of P.W.5, who is mediator and he also contended that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is contradictory to the evidence of P.W.3, who is Assistant Lineman, who assisted

P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the entire proceedings of the case and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is also contradictory to the evidence of

P.W.5, who is mediator and he also contended that the prosecution failed to establish and prove their case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

23.Keeping in view of the above contentions of both sides and on perusal of the record, it is clear that the P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that one local A.E. by name Vasantha Rao joined with them during inspection and he also stated that the local lineman has shown the location of the scene of offence to him and he also admitted in cross-examination that he did not try to secure any of the local persons including V.R.O. to act as mediators. He did not affix the labels by taking signatures of P.W.5 and L.W.6 on black colour 12 CC 10/2018 wire seized by him and he also admitted that he did not seize the removed fuse links, which are kept aside. He further stated that there are farmers and servants at ponds in the surroundings at the scene of offence.

24.The P.W.2 also deposed the same that one local A.E. by name Vasantha Rao also joined with them, during inspection, the concerned lineman shown the location of scene of offence and he also admitted that he himself and P.W.1 did not try to secure any of the local persons including V.R.O to act as mediator. He did not affix labels by taking signatures of P.W.5 and L.W.6 on black colour wire seized by him. He also admitted that he did not seize the removed fuse links. He stated that there are farmers and servants at ponds in the surroundings of the scene of offence and finally, he admitted that he received a copy of the complaint of the accused dated 10.02.2018 submitted to C.M.D. and others, he gone through the contents of the complaint, it is mentioned in the complaint that

Vasantha Rao, A.E. threatened the accused for refusal to pay the bribe and also threatened the accused that how he will continue to cultivate the culture of ponds. The P.W.2 further admitted that he know that the accused filed writ on the file of Hon’ble High Court of

A.P. and there is direction to the accused to deposit ¼ of the assessed amount subject to the result of writ petition and the said writ petition is still pending.

13 CC 10/2018

25.The above portion of the evidence of P.W.2 is clearly supporting the version of defence that there are differences between the accused and the local A.E. Vasantha Rao, who also joined with this P.W.1 and P.W.2 and inspected the service connections of the accused herein.

26.Further, the P.W.3, local lineman, who shown the electricity service connection No.491 and 498 to P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also attested in Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, mediator report, and inspection report at both the scene of offences stated in his evidence that he shown the service connection 491 to P.W.2 and also shown the S.C.No.498 to P.W.1 and they prepared inspection report.

27.P.W.3 specifically deposed in chief evidence itself that he did not observe any theft of electricity energy at the above service connections. The P.W.1 and P.W.2 also not informed to him except asking him to show the location of S.C.No.491 and 498. Accordingly, the above evidence of P.W.3 is contradictory to the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding with their detection of theft of energy and preparation of Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 and furthermore, the

P.W.3 also stated in cross-examination that he did not observe the seizure of any material at the scene of offence by P.W.1 and P.W.2.

14 CC 10/2018

Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is quite contradictory to the evidence of P.W.3 and further neither the P.W.1 and P.W.2, nor the P.W.6 produced the seized black colour wire before the

Court, though the P.W.1 and P.W.2 specifically stated that they seized the black colour wire, which is used to commit theft of electricity energy, but they failed to produce the same before the

Court and to mark as material object. The said non production of the property leads to any amount of doubt on the testimony of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 apart from the evidence of P.W.3, who admitted that he did not observe the seizure of any material at the scene of offence by P.W.1 and P.W.2. Accordingly, the above contradictions and non production of the seized material before the Court supports the contention of the defence.

28.Further, the P.W.5 mediator also stated in his cross- examination that he know P.W.1 and has well acquaintance with

P.W.1, as he used to attend in Vidyuth Bhavan for electricity work.

He do not know L.W.2. The above evidence of P.W.5 itself is enough to say that he is interested witness and moreover, he is resident of

Nellore. He joined with P.W.1 and P.W.2 and rushed to the scene of offence, which is far away from Nellore and the non securing mediator by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in surroundings of scene of offence, though the farmers and servants at ponds in the surroundings of the scene of offence are available and they also did not try to secure any 15 CC 10/2018 local V.R.O as mediator and they also failed to seize the removed fuse links at both the scene of offences.

29.The above non seizure of removed fuse links at the scene of offence and non production of the alleged seized black colour wire said to be used to commit theft of energy and also in view of the above discussed discrepancies and material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and P.W.3 and P.W.5 regarding the above all aspects of detection of theft, seizure of black colour wire and preparation of Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 inspection reports and mediator report at the scene of offence leads to any amount of doubt and reliability of the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and P.W.3 and P.W.5 and thereby, the prosecution has failed to establish and prove that the accused committed theft of electricity energy at

S.C.No.491 and 498. Accordingly, the above points No.1 and 2 are answered.

30.Point No.3:

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Based on the findings on points No.1 and 2, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offenceunder Section 135 (1) (a)(b) of The Electricity Act, 2003 16 CC 10/2018 and this Court found that the accused is not guilty for the offences with which he is charged. Accordingly, the point No.3 is answered.

31.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 135 (1) (a)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

32.The unmarked property i.e. 5 meters black colour AB cable PVC Aluminum wire shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 28 th day of March, 2022.

Sd/- G. S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1 B. Gopi, AE, DPE-1, APSPDCL, Nellore

P.W.2 A. Ravi Narayana, Addl.Divisional Engineer, DPE-I, APSPDCL, Nellore.

P.W.3 P. Venugopal Reddy,ALM, Mungamur Section, APSPDCL, Nellore circle.

P.W.4T. Malyadri, V.R.O.., Mungamur village.

P.W.5Sd. Aslam

P.W.6Sk. Ansari Basha, Retired S.I. of Police.

17 CC 10/2018

FOR DEFENCE: NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Complaint given by P.W.1

Ex.P2 Inspection report

Ex.P3Mediator report

Ex.P4Complaint

Ex.P5Mediator report

Ex.P6Inspection report

Ex.P7Certificate issued by V.R.O.

Ex.P8Certificate issued by V.R.O.

Ex.P9Signature of L.W.7 in F.I.R in Cr.No.460/2018

Ex.P10Signature of L.W.7 in F.I.R in Cr.No.461/2018

Ex.P11Signature of L.W.7 in charge sheet

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/- G. S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nellore.

//True copy//

I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nellore.

18 CC 10/2018

1 CC 23/2017

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: NELLORE.

Present: - Sri G.S. RAMESH KUMAR

I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Tuesday, this the 29th day of March, 2022

A.P.T.S. C.C. No.23 of 2017

COMPLAINANT NAMES AND DESCRIPTION OF

ACCUSED

State – Sub-Inspector of Police,KodimgariVenkateswarulu, Vigilance & Anti Power Theft S/o.Swamysetty, Age: 51 years, R/o. Squad P.S., APSPDCL, Nellore. Ramchandrapuram village, Vidavaluru Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, Native of Pathakadapalem, Juvvaladinne Post, Bogole Mandal, of S.P.S.R Nellore District.

Charge Under Section 135 (1) (a) (b) of Electricity Act.

Plea of the accused Not guilty

Finding of the judge Found not guilty

Sentence or order In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 135 (1)(a) (b) of Electricity Act and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property i.e. 10 meter PVC Alluminum wire shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

The Prosecution is conducted by Sri D. Bhanu Raman,

Special Public Prosecutor, Nellore.

Smt. P. Jhansi, Advocate for the accused.

2 CC 23/2017

This case is coming on 25.03.2022 for final hearing

before me and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance and ante Power

Theft Squad Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 135 (1)(a)(b) of

Electricity Act, 2003, in Crime No.1039/2017 of Vigilance and Anti

Power Theft Squad Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that,

On 07-03-2017 at 03-00 hours, P.W.1 inspected the Service

Connection No. 325130800239-Category-III at the premises of the aqua culture by the accused and found the accused indulged in theft of energy by removing out going load cable from the meter outgoing

LT distribution board made with LT shackles and connected directly to the transformer-3 phase LT bushing rods, due to which, the meter cannot record the consumption as it is totally bypassed. Thus, the accused involved in pilferage of energy, after removal of load cable from the 3 phase LT bushing rods of the DTR and connecting to the

LT distribution board, the meter found functioning normally i.e., LED blinking and the accused utilizing the power dishonestly for running 24 HP load to run the aerators and bore well motors for aqua culture 3 CC 23/2017 purpose, thereby, the APSPDCL sustained loss estimated at

Rs.9,816/-

Basing on the complaint given by P.W.1, a case in Crime

No.1039/17 under Section 135(1) (a) (b) Electricity Act 2003, was registered in Vigilance and APTS PS, Nellore on 15-03-2017 at 12-30 hours against the accused.

During the course of investigation, P.W.4 examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and recorded their statements besides inspecting the scene of offence. Further, it has been established that the accused is having two aqua ponds an extent of 1.5 acre of each pond and the land in Ramachandrapuram village. One service connection under category LT.III (a) vide ISC No:3251308000239 was released on the name of accused for doing prawn culture in the said premises. The accused with the criminal intention of stealing power supply, by passed the meter connections and unauthorizedly utilizing the power supply to the aerators and bore wells for aqua culture. As per the investigation and evidence, prima-facie case has been established against the accused under Section 135 (1) (a) (b) of Electricity Act 2003.

As per the provisions laid down in Section 152 (b) Electricity

Act 2003, compounding of an offence under Sub-Section (1) shall be allowed only once for any person/consumer and as such the accused forfeited his right to get the present case compounded, since he was involved previously in a case of power theft vide Crime No.146/17 4 CC 23/2017 under Section 135 (1) (a) (b) of Electricity Act 2013 of Vigilance and

APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore and got compounded the case by paying the compounding amount.

As such during the further course of investigation, notice under Section 41 (A) Cr.Pc has been served on the accused on 18.03.2017 with instructions to appear before the Court, whenever his presence is required and obtained explanation from him. After completion of investigation, P.W.4 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file by this Court under section 135 [1][a] [b] of the Electricity Act, 2003. Charge under Section

Sec.135[1][a] [b] of Electricity Act, was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked.

5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.4-Sriharikota Srinivasulu and L.W.5-Sriharikota

Kamakshaiah and closed the prosecution side evidence.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, for which he denied the 5 CC 23/2017 incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the defence.

8.Now the points for consideration are :

1. Whether the accused at the premises of his Aqua culture illegally tapped by removing outgoing load cable wire from the meter outgoing LT distribution board made with L.T. shackles and connected directly to Transformer 3 phase LT bushing rods and thereby committed theft of energy assessed at Rs.9,816/-

2. Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt

of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT NO. 1 :

1. Whether the accused at the premises of his Aqua culture illegally tapped by removing outgoing load cable wire from the meter outgoing LT distribution board made with L.T. shackles and connected directly to Transformer 3 phase LT bushing rods and thereby committed theft of energy assessed at Rs.9,816/-

P.W.1 to P.W.4 are examined on behalf of the prosecution. According to P.W.1, on 7.3.2017 at about 3.00 A.M.,

D.E., Operations, Kavali, conducted raid at Utukuru section, he accompanied with the Divisional Engineer, and reached to 6 CC 23/2017

Ramachandrapuram village, they verified the service connection

No.239 belonged to the accused, and found that the electricity connection was taken from bushing rods of transformer directly bypassing the electricity meter and thereby committed theft of electricity energy. Already the accused was involved in similar electricity offence.

10.P.W.1 further stated that consumption of electricity for a period 10 days by bypassing the meter was calculated 859 units and the value of loss assessed is Rs.9,816/-. Then he called for L.W.4 and L.W.5 and prepared inspection report and also mediator report, in their presence and they also attested the same. He further stated that he collected the wires, which are used to commit the offence of theft of energy and lodged complaint with the police. Ex.P1 is inspection report Ex.P2 is mediator report. Ex.P3 is the complaint.

11.Further, the evidence of P.W.2 is regarding with earlier offence against the accused and payment of assessment amount in the said case at Rs.1,75,000/- and payment of a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compounding fee by the accused etc.

12. The P.W.3 deposed in supporting the evidence of P.W.1 regarding with checking of service connection No.239 belongs to the accused and found theft of electricity energy and also securing the 7 CC 23/2017 presence of L.W.4 and L.W.5 and preparation of Inspection report, mediator report and also collection of wire used for theft of energy and also lodged complaint by P.W.1 etc.

13.The P.W.4 is the Investigation Officer. He stated that on 15.03.2017, P.W.1 came to police station and lodged complaint, he received the same and registered as a case in Cr.No.1039/2017 under Section 135 (1)(a) & (b) of Electricity Act and issued F.I.R., which is Ex.P4. He examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.3, visited the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is Ex.P5 and also found that the accused involved in crime No.146/2017 earlier to this case and the case on hand is the 2nd one, issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet. He also filed a receipt under which, the accused paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compounding fee in the earlier crime No.146/2017.

14.The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 corroborated with each other and supported the case of prosecution and also clearly established that the accused already involved in a similar offence in Cr.No.146/2017 and paid compounding amount of Rs.30,000/- under Ex.P6 and again committed this offence, which is 2nd one and the accused is liable for punishment.

8 CC 23/2017

15.In contra, the learned counsel for defence contended that there is no corroboration of evidence between P.W.1 to P.W.4. The evidence of P.W.2 is only regarding with earlier crime and payment of compounding fee of Rs.30,000/- under Ex.P6 by the accused. But, in the case on hand, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are contradictory and doubtful and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal, if the prosecution failed to prove the offence against the accused.

16.In view of the above contentions of both sides and on perusal of the record and the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, it is clear that the P.W.1 and P.W.3 participated in raids. According to P.W.1, the date of detection of case is on 7.03.2017 at about 3.00A.M..

whereas P.W.3 stated that it is on 6.03.2017 at about 6.00 P.M., this is one of the contradictions regarding with date and time of inspection.

17.Further, the P.W.1 stated on the same day on 7.3.2017 he lodged complaint Ex.P1 with P.W.3. The P.W.3 also stated that the P.W.1 lodged complaint with the police on 7.3.2017, whereas the

P.W.4/Investigation Officer stated that on 15.03.2017, the P.W.1 came to A.P.T.S. P.S and lodged complaint, he received the same and registered as a case in Cr.No.1039/2017 and issued F.I.R under 9 CC 23/2017

Ex.P4. Accordingly, the above evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are contradictory with each other. As per P.W.1, the date of inspection and complaint under Ex.P3, both are on 7.03.2017 itself, as per P.W.3 the date of inspection is on 6.3.2017 and the date of complaint is 7.03.2017, as per P.W.4, the date of complaint is 15.03.2017. However, on perusal of Ex.P3, there is no date along with the signature of P.W.1 in the said complaint. The endorsement regarding with registration of the case by P.W.4 shows that he received Ex.P3 and registered the same on 15.03.2017. Accordingly, all their evidence is not only contradictory to each other and also inconsistent with Ex.P3,complaint Further, there is no explanation either from P.W.1 or from P.W.4 for the above said delay between 7.03.2017 to 15.03.2017.

18.The another contradiction between the P.W.1, P.W.3 and

P.W.4 is that P.W.1 stated in his cross-examination that he lodged

Ex.P3 complaint at about 10.00 to 10.30 A.M. with the police, whereas P.W.3 stated in his cross-examination that P.W.1 lodged complaint with the police on 7.3.2017 and also he stated in cross- examination that he was examined by the police on 7.03.2017 itself after 10.00 A.M. in his office, whereas the P.W.4 stated that he examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.3 on the same day of the complaint on 15.03.2017. Accordingly, the above evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 regarding with examination and 10 CC 23/2017 recording of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is also contradictory to each other. Hence, the above evidence of P.W.1,

P.W.3 and P.W.4 remained doubtful. When such is the case, as the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 is found doubtful, there must be evidence by independent witnesses, who are the mediators L.W.4 and L.W.5. Their evidence is necessary to come to the conclusion on the above testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4. But the prosecution failed to produce and examine L.W.4 and L.W.5, who are mediators under Ex.P2 at the scene of offence, but in the absence of the evidence of the said L.W.4 and L.W.5, there is no other go, except to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3 and

P.W.4, as already discussed above.

19.Under those circumstances, it can be said that the prosecution failed to establish and prove that the accused illegally tapped by removing outgoing load cable from the meter outgoing LT distribution board made with LT shackles and connected directly to

Transformer 3 phase L.T. bushing rods and thereby tampered electricity and committed theft of energy. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

20.Point No.2:

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

11 CC 23/2017

In view of the findings on point No.1, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 135 (1)(a)(b) of Electricity Act and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

22.The unmarked property i.e. 10 meter PVC Alluminum wire shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of March, 2022.

Sd/- G. S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1 M.Bhanu Naik, Asst.Divisional Engineer, Operation, Sub Division, Buchi, APSPDCL P.W.2 A. Somasekhara Reddy, Asst.Divisional Engineer, Operation, Northrajupalem sub division, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle P.W.3 G. Vijaya Kumar,Addl.Asst. Engineer, Operation, Buchi Town Section, Operation, APSPDCL, Nellore Circle. PW.4Sk. Ansari Basha, S.I. of Police, Vigilance and APTS PS, APSPDCL, Nellore.

12 CC 23/2017

FOR DEFENCE: NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Inspection proceedings

Ex.P2 Mediator report

Ex.P3 Complaint in Cr.No.1039/2017

Ex.P4First Information Report

Ex.P5Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P6 Receipt

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

N I L

Sd/- G. S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.

//True copy//

I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nellore.

13 CC 23/2017

1

A.S.No.26 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: NELLORE.

Present: Sri G.S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District Judge, Nellore

Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022

A.S. No.26 of 2021

Tirakala Prasanna Kumari, W/o. Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 55 years, R/o. Aravinda Nagar Extn., Pathakalva Katta, D.No.23-4-298, Nellore City…Appellant/defendant

Vs.

Methuku Srinivasa Rao S/o. Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 62 years, R/o. Flat No.11,

Sri Mahalakshmi M.S.C. Apartment,

Stonehousepeta, Nellore City… Respondent/Plaintiff

Appeal preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 07.04.2021 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore

In

O.S. No.724/2018

Methuku Srinivasa Rao... Plaintiff

V.

Tirakala Prasanna Kumari... Defendant

2

A.S.No.26 of 2021

This appeal coming before me on 31.03.2021 in the presence of Sri V. Upendra Rao, advocate for the appellant/defendant and of Sri P. Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff, and upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant under Order 41

Rule 1 and Section 96 of C.P.C against the decree and judgment dated 07.04.2021 passed in O.S. No.724/2018 on the file of I Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Nellore, praying this Court, to allow the appeal by setting aside

the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.724/2018 dated 07.04.2021 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, and dismiss the suit as prayed in the plaint.

2. The brief averments of the plaint in O.S. No.724/2018 as follows:

On 24.05.2016, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,04,000/- from the plaintiff for her family necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 30% per annum and also agreed to repay the same with compound interest either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. On 25.05.2016, the defendant executed “Chupudu Adumana appu pathram” wherein, her husband also subscribed his signature and she also deposited her title deeds dated 30.08.1993 bearing document No.4502/1993 of

S.R.O., Nellore, executed in favour of Mungamuru Padmavathamma by 3

A.S.No.26 of 2021

Vinukonda Subba Rathnamma and Vinukonda Chenchu Ramaiah and the sale deed executed by Mungamuru Padmavathi in favour of the defendant

dated 15.09.1997 bearing document No.5984/1997 of S.R.O., Nellore, as

security for the above debt. Thereafter, her husband also borrowed different amounts from the plaintiff by keeping his scooter bearing No.AP 26 BG 2839 and also a laptop Lenovo making total of Rs.45,000/-

(i). Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the said debt and later the defendant issued a cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Fathekhanpet Branch, dated 21.11.2008 bearing No.621538 for Rs.7,50,000/- towards part satisfaction of the said debt and the same was presented for collection, but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement “exceeds arrangements”.

Hence, the plaintiff caused statutory notice to the defendant and the same was served on the defendant. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying all the allegations specifically made in the plaint, and further contended that the son of the plaintiff by name Saranesh and the son of the defendant by name

T.V. Hari Prasad were close friends. So, the son of the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,70,008/- as hand loan and subsequently, differences arose between the son of plaintiff and the son of the defendant, as such, the son of plaintiff took away the motor cycle and laptop of the defendant by using force and detained them. On knowing the same, the defendant approached the son of plaintiff and the plaintiff and requested to release the 4

A.S.No.26 of 2021

said articles but the plaintiff demanded one signed blank promissory note, signed blank cheque and also documents of her house to release the said articles. Believing the words of plaintiff, the defendant gave one signed blank promissory note, signed blank cheque and also documents of her house to release the said articles, but the plaintiff without releasing the articles, demanded compound interest for the said Rs.47,000/- and the defendant refused to comply the same, as such, the plaintiff misused the said signed blank promissory note, signed blank cheque and also house property documents and filed this suit with false and baseless allegations and the defendant never received any consideration from the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint and the defendant lodged written report against the plaintiff and his son. The interest claimed by the plaintiff is excessive and exorbitant and suit promissory note documents are fabricated. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the suit documents such as promissory note, Stirasti Chupudu Adumanu patram are true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount as prayed for?

(3) To what relief?

5

A.S.No.26 of 2021

5. On behalf of plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On behalf of defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and no documents are marked.

6.The Learned trial Judge, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit with costs.

7.Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant preferred this appeal on the file of this Court, on the following grounds:

(i) The judgment of the trial Court is unjust, and not maintainable either law or on facts.

(ii) The trial Court not properly appreciated the cross-examination of P.W.1 in respect of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and passed the impugned judgment and decree.

(iii) The trial Court misreading the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and erroneously relied on their evidence and also Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and passed the impugned judgment and decree.

(iv) The trial Court failed to appreciate the rulings submitted by the appellant/defendant at the time of argument of the suit.

(v) The trial court failed to see that the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove his initial burden in respect of the passing of consideration under the said alleged promissory note.

(vi). The trial Court erroneously draw the presumption though the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove his initial burden.

(vii). The trial Court failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the appellant/defendant in her written statement and also evidence.

6

A.S.No.26 of 2021

(viii). The trial Court ought to have seen that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is contradicting on material particulars in respect of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

(ix). The approach of the trial court is wrong in passing the impugned judgment and decree against the appellant/defendant.

(x). The trial Court ought to have seen that the interest claimed by the respondent/plaintiff is against law and the same is exorbitant.

(xi). The trial Court erroneously believed the arguments of respondent/plaintiff and passed the impugned judgment and decree.

For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of this appeal, the appellant prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2021 in O.S.No.724/2018 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

8. Now, the points for determination in this appeal are:

[1] Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings of the Learned Trial Judge ?

[2] To what relief?

9.POINT No.1 : -

Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings of the Learned Trial Judge ?

Heard both sides. Perused the records. The Learned Counsel

for appellant contended that judgment of the trial Court is unjust, and not

maintainable, as the trial Court not properly appreciated the evidence in 7

A.S.No.26 of 2021

cross-examination of P.W.1 in respect of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The trial Court misread the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and erroneously relied on their evidence and also on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. At the same time, failed to appreciate the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2. The trial Court also failed to appreciate the rulings relied on by the appellant at the time of arguments.

The trial Court failed to see that the plaintiff failed to prove his initial burden in respect of passing consideration under the alleged promissory note and erroneously drawn the presumption in favour of the complainant.

10.In contra, the learned Counsel for respondent contended that there are no merits in the appeal, the judgment of the trial Court is based on well appreciation of evidence and there is no any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of the trial Court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11.In view of the above contentions of both sides and on perusal of the record and the judgment of the trial Court, it is clear that the above suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,95,020/- based on the promissory note dated 24.05.2016 for an amount of 5,04,000/-.

12.The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed the above said amount of Rs.5,04,000/- and executed Ex.A1-pronote dated 24.05.2016, agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 30% per annum with compound interest. Again, on 25.05.2016, the defendant executed Chupudu Adumanu appu patram. The husband of the defendant also subscribed his signature and the defendant also deposited the title 8

A.S.No.26 of 2021

deeds stands in her name. The said title deeds are marked as Ex.A3 and

A4. Ex.A5 is the encumbrance certificate, whereas the defendant contended that the son of the plaintiff by name Saranesh and the son of the defendant T.V. Hariprasad were close friends. The son of the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,70,008/- as hand loan and subsequently, due to the differences, the plaintiff taken away his motor cycle and laptop of the defendant forcibly. When the defendant approached the plaintiff for return of the same, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to sign in a blank promissory note and blank cheque and also documents of her house.

Believing the said words of the plaintiff, the defendant gave a signed promissory note and also blank cheque and house property documents.

But, the plaintiff without releasing the articles, demanded compound interest for the said amount of Rs.47,000/- and the defendant refused, as such, the plaintiff misused the signed blank promissory note and cheque and property documents and filed the false suit. The defendant also lodged a written report against the plaintiff and his son.

13.Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the issues:

(1) Whether the suit documents such as promissory note, Stirasti Chupudu Adumanu patram are true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount as prayed for?

(3) To what relief?

9

A.S.No.26 of 2021

14.In support of the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2, attestor of Ex.A1 pronote. The P.W.1 specifically deposed the execution of Ex.A1 in his presence and also stated that Ex.A1 transaction was taken place in his presence. The defendant and one Sobhan Babu, who is 1st attestor were also present and signed in

Ex.A1. The defendant also delivered her house documents to the plaintiff as security. Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are clearly supported with each other regarding with transaction and execution of

Ex.A1, by the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff shifted the initial burden lies on him. Now the onus of burden shifts on the defendant to prove her plea of no consideration under Ex.A1 and also the alleged cheque etc. But the defendant herself examined as D.W.1 and adduced the evidence of her son as D.W.2 and reiterated the averments of the written statement.

15.In view of the above discussed evidence of both sides, the trial

Court also drawn the presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act in favour of plaintiff and also found that the defendant failed to rebut the above presumption.

16.Further, the trial Court also observed and discussed the rulings relied on by the Counsel for the defendant and came to conclusion that the said rulings are not applicable in favour of the defendant. Hence, the question of trial Court failed to appreciate the rulings submitted by the defendant and also failed to appreciate the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2, does not arise. Accordingly, this Court found no illegality or irregularity in 10

A.S.No.26 of 2021

the judgment of the trial Court and it does not require interference of the appellate Court. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

17.Point No.2:-

To what relief?

IN THE RESULT, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.724/2018 dated 07.04.2021 by the I Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, is confirmed. In the circumstances of the case, no costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- G. S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District Judge, Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- NIL -

Sd/- G. S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District Judge, Nellore.

Copy to: The I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

//True copy// 11

A.S.No.26 of 2021

1 CC 17/2017

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: NELLORE.

Present: - Sri G.S. RAMESH KUMAR

I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Tuesday, this the 29th day of March, 2022

A.P.T.S. C.C. No.17 of 2017

COMPLAINANT NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF ACCUSED

State – Inspector of Police,Somaiahgari Govindu, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 72 Vigilance & Anti Power Theft Squad years, Tummalapenta Post, Ramachandrapuram P.S., APSPDCL, Nellore. village, Kavali Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Charge Under Section 135 (1) (a) (b) of Electricity Act

Plea of the accused Not guilty

Finding of the judge Found not guilty

Sentence or order In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 135 (1)(a) (b) of Electricity Act and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

The unmarked property i.e. 3 x 2 meters black colour AB cable wire, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

The Prosecution is conducted by Sri D. Bhanu Raman, Special Public

Prosecutor, Nellore.

Sri M. Suresh Kumar, advocate for the accused.

This case is coming on 24.03.2022 for final hearing before me and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 CC 17/2017

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and ante Power Theft Squad Police

Station, APSPDCL, Nellore, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 135 (1)(a)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003, in Crime No.2828/16 of Vigilance and Anti Power Theft Squad Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

TheAccused is a native of Ramachandrapuram village,

Thummalapenta post, Kavali Mandal of S.P.S.R.Nellore District.

On 02-09-2016 at 05-20 hours, P.W.1 along with L.W.2-K. Suneel

Kumar, Sub-Engineer, Kavali Rural Section, inspected the premises of prawn culture ponds of the Accused and found the accused committing theft of energy directly tapped off from the LT Bushings of the DTR with 3 X 2 Mtrs 20 SWG black coloured

PVC Aluminum AB cable, to his aqua culture, to connect his prawn tank loads directly, thereby directly tapped of the DTR. P.W.1 drafted inspection notes, removed the incriminating wires used for committing theft of energy and estimated the power loss due to theft of energy at Rs. 6,175/-. On the inspection report of P.W.1, a case in Crime No:2828/16 under Section 135 (1) (a) (b) of Electricity Act 2003 of

A.P.T.S. Police Station was registered on 06-09-2016 at 07-30 hours and investigated by P.W.3. P.W.3 examined P.W.1, L.W.2 and P.W.2 and recorded their detailed statements besides inspecting the scene of offence.

As per the provisions laid down in Section 152 (b) of Electricity Act 2003, compounding of an offence under Sub-Section (1) shall be allowed only once for any consumer and as such the accused forfeited his right to get present case 3 CC 17/2017 compounded since he involved previously in power theft in Crime Nos:859/2012, 860/2012 & 861/2012 under Section 135 (1) (a) (b) of Electricity Act 2013 of Vigilance and APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore and got compounded the cases by paying the compounding fees.

As such during the course of investigation, P.W.3 served notice U/Sec 41 (A) Cr.P.C to the accused on 11.12.2016 with instructions to appear before the

Court, whenever his presence is required and obtained explanation from him. After completion of investigation, P.W.3 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3.The case was taken on file by this Court under section 135 [1][a] [b] of the Electricity Act, 2003. Charge under Section 135 [1] [a] [b] of Electricity Act, was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to P5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.2-K. Suneel Kumar, L.W.4-Upputuru Kasumuri and L.W.5-Vayala

Yanadaiah.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for which he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence.

4 CC 17/2017

7.Now the points for consideration are :

1. Whether the accused illegally tapped and tampered electrical wire at his prawn fields by directly tapping off from L.T. bushings of the DTR with 3x2 mts 20 SWG black colour PVC aluminum AB cable and thereby committed theft of energy in

contravention of provisions under Electricity Act?

2. Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

8. POINT NO. 1 :-

1. Whether the accused illegally tapped and tampered electrical wire at his prawn fields by directly tapping off from L.T. bushings of the DTR with 3x2 mts 20 SWG black colour PVC aluminum AB cable and thereby committed theft of energy in contravention of provisions under Electricity Act?

The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3. According to P.W.1, who is

Asst. Divisional Engineer, he received phone call on 2.09.2016 from unknown person regarding theft of energy at Ramudupalem village, then he himself and L.W.2 went to the above said village and inspected the same, during inspection, they also visited the electricity service connection of the accused, who got supply of electricity from L.T.

bushing rods to the motor by bypassing the electricity meter. The P.W.1 further stated that he secured the presence of L.W.4 and L.W.5 and prepared the inspection report and also seized the wire which is used to commit theft of energy and he also estimated the loss at Rs.6,170/-, thereafter, he lodged complaint with the police. The inspection report is Ex.P1. The mediators report is Ex.P2, complaint is Ex.P3. L.W.4 and L.W.5 attested in Ex.P2.

5 CC 17/2017

9.The P.W.3, Investigation Officer stated that on 6.09.2016, P.W.1 submitted the written complaint, he received the same and registered as a case in

Cr.No.2828/16 under Section 135 of (a)(b) of Electricity Act and issued F.I.R., which is Ex.P4. He also received inspection report, and mediator report along with Ex.P4 from P.W.1 and he conducted the investigation. He examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1, L.W.2 and L.W.3, he also visited the scene of offence. During the course of investigation, he also found that this accused is already involved in similar offences of electricity theft in Cr.No.859/2012, 860/2012 and 861/2012. He also stated that he drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is Ex.P5.

After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

10.Whereas the P.W.2, who also worked as Asst. Divisional Engineer deposed that on 09.05.2012, he himself along with other electricity employees conducted raids and found unauthorized usage of electricity at 3 electricity service connection of prawn ponds of the accused, he gave three complaints in

Cr.No.859/2012, 860/2012 and 861/2012. The accused also paid assessment of loss at Rs.21,763/- in each case.

11.Except the above evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, there is no other evidence from the prosecution side since the prosecution given up the mediators

L.W.4 and L.W.5, as their whereabouts are not known.

12.Further, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the above evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 clearly established and proved that the accused committed theft of electricity energy and the accused is liable for punishment.

6 CC 17/2017

13.The Counsel for defence contended that the evidence of P.W.1 to

P.W.3 is doubtful and their evidence itself is not enough to prove the case against the accused and moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 remained uncorroborated and the testimony of P.W.1 can not be believed, as there is no corroboration. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14.Keeping in view of the above contentions of both sides and on perusal of the record, and evidence, it is clear that the P.W.1, complainant admitted in his cross-examination that he did not collect any document to show that the accused is the owner of the scene of offence prawn ponds and he also adds that the accused himself claimed as owner. Further, the P.W.1 did not secure the surrounding farmers as mediators or as the witnesses though the owners and workers are always there in day and night time at the ponds, while cultivating the fish and prawns.

15.The above evidence of P.W.1 remained uncorroborated as the L.W.4 and L.W.5, who are mediators are not examined. Accordingly, the mediators report under Ex.P2 is not supported by the attestors L.W.4 and L.W.5. Further, the P.W.1 also admitted in cross-examination that he sent the complaint to police on the evening of the same day through his staff, the same was also received in police station.

16.In contradictory to the evidence of P.W.1, the Investigation

Officer/P.W.3 stated in his evidence in cross-examination that there is delay of 4 days in between the filing of the complaint and the date of offence. No explanation from

P.W.3/Investigation Officer for the said delay and the question of explanation from

P.W.1 does not arise, since he stated in his evidence that on 2.09.2016 he detected 7 CC 17/2017 the case, on the same day, he lodged complaint under Ex.P3 and the same is also received in police station on the same day. Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.3 is doubtful in respect of date of complaint, whether it is on 2.09.2016 or 6.09.2016 and there is no explanation for the delay. The P.W.3 also failed to collect any documentary proof to show the ownership particulars of the accused for scene of offence. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 that he detected the theft of electricity energy in service connections of accused in Cr.No.859/2012, 860/2012 and 861/2012 and payment of loss of an amount of Rs.21,763/- in the year 2002 itself, is not sufficient to prove the case on hand against the accused.

17.The above said evidence of P.W.2 is useful only to commence the prosecution against the accused, as the alleged offence in this case against the accused is subsequent or 2nd one. When the prosecution failed to establish and prove the case on hand, the earlier detection of similar offence against the accused and his payments of assessment of loss of an amount is of no use. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish and prove that the accused committed theft of electricity energy. Hence, the point No.1 is answered.

18. Point No.2:-

2. Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

In view of the findings on point No.1, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

8 CC 17/2017

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 135 (1)(a)(b) of Electricity Act and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

20. The unmarked property i.e. 3 x 2 meters black colour AB cable wire, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,. corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of March, 2022.

Sd/- G. S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1 T. Sridhar, Asst. Divisional Engineer, Kavali Sub Division, Kavali Town, APSPDCL P.W.2 K. Ramesh Chowdary, Asst.Divisional Engineer, Town II Sub division, Nellore P.W.3 Smt. M. Nageswaramma, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, APSPDCL, Nellore.

FOR DEFENCE: NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 Inspection report

Ex.P.2 Mediator report

Ex.P.3 Complaint given to police.

Ex.P.4First Information Report in Cr.No.2828/16 of APTS, Nellore.

Ex.P5Rough sketch of the scene of offence

FOR DEFENCE: NIL 9 CC 17/2017

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

N I L

Sd/- G. S. Ramesh Kumar

I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nellore.

//True copy// 10 CC 17/2017