Sri P.Subramanya Kumar, I Addl.District Judge

SC 23/2017C 23/20171

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Sri P. Subramanya Kumar, I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Monday, this the 27th day of November, 2017

SESSIONS CASE No.23 of 2017

Name of the Complainant :State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance & A.P.T.S. P.S.

Description of the accused:Appakondappagari Harinath Chowdary S/o Late Sreenivasulu, 50 yrs, Owner of Mineral Water Plant, Kothacheruvu Village and mandal Ananthapuramu District

Offence:U/s 135(a) of Indian Electricity Act

Plea of accused :Not guilty

Finding of the Judge :Not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, accused is found not guilty of the charge U/s 135(a) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and accordingly he is acquitted of the said charge U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused on record shall be in force for a period of six months. MO.1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Cr. No. and P.S concerned :10749/2015 of Vigilance & APTS PS, Ananthapuramu

This sessions case coming on 24.11.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T. Raja Ram, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.10749/2015 for the offence U/s 135 of Indian

Electricity Act.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 11.12.2015 at 9.00 A.M. LW.1 A. Veeranjaneya Reddy, Addl. Asst.

Engineer, DPE-1, APSPDCL, Ananthapuramu Circle along with LW.2

Y. Prabhakar, Divisional Engineer, and LW.3 Narayana Swamy, Asst. Engineer,

SC 23/2017C 23/20172

inspected the water plant of the accused and found though the water plant has service connection No.4637 the accused indulged in theft of energy by tapping directly from nearby incoming L.T. over head line by means of two numbers PVC black coloured 7/20 aluminum wires and connected to load points i.e. RO motor (2200 W), bore motor 1492 W (2HP), raw water motor (750W), bulb (60W) and tube light (40 W) total 4552 watts and using energy to his mineral water plant illegally. As the accused indulged in pilferage of energy the loss sustained by the company is estimated at Rs.3,01,653-00.

LW.1 seized about 5 mts lengh two wires 7/20 PVC black coloured aluminum wire used for tapping from LT line in the presence of LW.2 and LW.3 under a cover of proceedings. On the complaint of LW.1, LW.8 Y. Ramakrishna, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Vigilance & APTS registered a case in Cr.No.10749/2015

U/s 135(a) of Electricity Act, 2003 and investigated into and deputed LW.5

A. Anjana Reddy, PC 1536, and LW.6 P. Rajasekhar, HC 1826, to collect compound amount of Rs.17,000/- number of times since it is a first theft case of energy against the accused, but the accused refused to pay the amount.

The accused also refused to take notice U/s 41(A) CPC and hence the same was affixed to his house and water plant and took photographs. Hence, the charge.

3. The charge sheet was taken cognizance by this Court as S.C.23/2017 for the offence U/s 135(a) of Electricity Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, this court examined him under section 228 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty. On hearing both sides, charge under Section 135(a) of Indian Electricity Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

SC 23/2017C 23/20173

5. The prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and MO.1 and closed its side evidence. None were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents are marked on his behalf.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s 313 CrPC explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him, for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Basing on the charge sheet averments as well as the charge framed against the accused, the point that arises for determination is

Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable

doubt that on 11.12.2015 at about 9.00 A.M. at Kothacheruvu

village, the accused used electrical energy to his water plant by

directly tapping from nearby over head L.T. lines with the help of two

PVC black coloured 7/20 aluminum wires and pilferaged 4552 Watts

of electrical energy causing loss to a tune of Rs.3,01,653-00 to

APSPDCL company thereby rendering himself punishable U/s 135(a)

of the Indian Electricity Act?

9.POINT:-

In order to substantiate its contention the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and MO.1. PW.1 disclosed that on 11.12.2015 at 9.00 A.M. himself, LW.2 Prabhakar and LW.3 Narayanaswamy went to Kothacheruvu village for checking water plants and at about 12.20

P.M. they found one person and on enquiry he said that his name is

Sreenivasulu and the water plant belongs to the accused and he is working as

Supervisor in that plant. He disclosed that they found motors are running in the plant and meter was not recording energy and that on verification he found that power has been tapping directly with PVC insulated wire without

SC 23/2017C 23/20174

meter to the motors of RO plant. He disclosed that then he disconnected the tapping wire and seized two wires each 5 mts and total 4542 volts energy was used causing loss to a sum of Rs.3,01,653/- to their department. He disclosed that the entire proceedings were rendered into writing as panchanama under Ex.P1 dt.11.12.2015 and handed over the same to APTS.

Ex.P2 complaint, Ex.P3 inspection report and Ex.P4 inspection notes are marked through PW.1. According to PW.1 he handed over the seized wire to

APTS.

10.It is elicited in the cross-examination that the plant which he inspected is located in the school premises. It is disclosed by him in the cross- examination that he has not contacted any local engineers and that there are four water plants at Kothacheruvu. It is further disclosed by him that he does not have any record to show the names of four water plants in order to know the owners of the four water plants. It is further disclosed by him that he has seen the person available in the water plant namely Sreenivasulu who is the

Supervisor. It is disclosed by him that he has not enquired the particulars of the said person. It is elicited from PW.2 that he did not file any record to show that the service connection stands in the name of A. Harinatha Chowdary i.e.

accused. He admitted that village officers are available in Kothacheruvu village and the distance between the police and the meter is 15 mts i.e. main road of Kothacheruvu. He admitted that their department people were passing through the road. He also admitted that Ex.P3 does not contain the date and there are blanks in Ex.P3 in respect of meter reading and other particulars. No reasoning has been offered by the prosecution for the blanks in Ex.P3 which emanates any amount of doubt with regard to prosecution case.

11.PW.2 is the Supervisor before whom allegedly PW.1 inspected the premises of the accused and noticed tapping of energy directly from the pole to the water plant. PW.2 disclosed that he has not worked in any water plant previously at Kothacheruvu in Kothcheruvamma Social Protective Mineral

Water plant and Ante Power Theft Squad Officials have never seized

SC 23/2017C 23/20175

electricity meter in his presence from the above plant. PW.2 was treated as hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination by the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor nothing could be elicited from him incriminatingly against the accused except marking his statement before the police as in Ex.P5.

12.PW.3, the then S.I. of Police, Vigilance and APTS, Ananthapuramu disclosed hat on 12.12.2015 at about 8.20 A.M. PW.1, LW.2 Y. Prabhakar, LW.3

K. Narayanaswamy came to P.S. and submitted a complaint of theft of energy, assessment calculation property, seizure proceedings i.e. Ex.P2 and basing on Ex.P2 he registered a case in Cr.No.10749/2015 under Sec.135(a) of

Electricity Act and examined PW.2, LW.2 and LW.3 and recorded their statements. Ex.P6 is the original FIR which he sent to the Court.

13.PW.3 further disclosed that on 14.12.2015 at about 8.00 A.M. he visited the scene of offence which is situated opposite to Andhra Bank, Kothacheruvu which is a mineral plant and found the mineral water plant is in the house of accused and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P7.

According to PW.1 the plant is located in school premises. But PW.3 is disclosing that he found the water plant in the house of accused. Thus there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 with regard to the place of existence of water plant.

14.PW.3 disclosed that then he visited the house of accused and enquired about him and as he was not available he informed his wife about the case and that the accused has to pay an amount of Rs.17,000/- as compound amount. It is further disclosed by PW.3 that on 25.12.2015 at about 7.00 A.M.

he along with his staff went to Kothcheruvu and examined PW.2 and recorded his statement. He disclosed that on 11.1.2016 he deputed LW.5 Anjan Reddy and LW.6 P. Rajasekhar for collecting the compound amount from the accused and they reported that the accused prayed two weeks time for paying the same. He disclosed that on 4.2.2016 and 14.3.2016 he sent LW.5 and LW.6 to the house of accused for compound amount, but he refused to pay. Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are the special reports filed by LW.5 and LW.6.

SC 23/2017C 23/20176

15.PW.3 further disclosed that his Inspector of Police took up further investigation who visited the scene of offence on 28.2.2016 and obtained a letter from LW.7 and taken signature of PW.1, LW.2, LW.3 i.e. details of service of mineral water plant of the accused. Prosecution has marked Ex.P10 service details of accused issued by LW.7, Ex.P11 41(A) CrPC notice, Ex.P12 special report, MO.1 five mts black coloured 7/20 PVC insulated aluminum wire.

16.In the cross-examination it is elicited from PW.3 by the learned defence counsel that he has taken assistance of staff of A.E. Office at Kothacheruvu which is a new place to him. It is further admitted by him that the mineral water plant is located within the premises of Mandal Parishad School and that was a working a day. No explanation has been offered by PW.3 for not taking respectable persons in the locality where the scene of offence is located to stand as elders on the inspection notes. In the absence of it, the very inspecting the premises by PW.1 is not convincing. It is further elicited from

PW.3 in the cross-examination that the rough sketch prepared by him is in the surrounding area business concerns are there and he has not enquired the people residing surrounding the plant and with the school staff. It is admitted by him that the electricity department people did not produce any evidence to prove that the mineral water plant stands in the name of the accused.

Thus the very important aspect that the place where PW.1 raided belongs to the accused is not established by the prosecution by filing any document to substantiate that their contention that the property is owned by the accused.

17.It is got elicited from PW.3 that Ex.P1 contains corrections (black and green). No explanation has been offered by PW.3 for containing corrections in black and green under Ex.P1. Thus in view of not collecting evidence to substantiate that the premises which was raided by PW.1 belongs to the accused, finding corrections under Ex.P1, not taken the surrounding people assistance at the time of inspection emanate any amount of suspicion with regard to trustworthiness of the raid conducted by PW.1.

SC 23/2017C 23/20177

18.Thus for the reasons discussed supra, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charge U/s 139(a) of Electricity Act and the accused is entitled for acquittal for the said charge.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the charge U/s 135(a) of

Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and accordingly he is acquitted of the said charge

U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused on record shall be in force for a period of six months. MO.1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of November, 2017.

Sd/- P. Subramanya Kumar

I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

PW.1 : A. Veeranjaneya Reddy -None- PW.2 : A. Sreenivasulu PW.3 : G. Ramakrishna

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Proceedings Ex.P.2 : Complaint Ex.P.3 : Inspection report Ex.P.4 : Inspection notes Ex.P.5 : Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW.2 Ex.P.6 : FIR Ex.P.7 : Rough sketch Ex.P.8 : Special report given by LW.5 and LW.6 Ex.P.9 : Special report given by LW.5 and LW.6 Ex.P.10 : Service details of accused Ex.P11 : 41(A) CrPC notice Ex.P12 : Special report given by PC 1084

Exhibits marked for Defence

-Nil -

Mos. Marked

MO.1 : Five mts black coloured 7/20 PVC insulated aluminum wire.

Sd/- P.S.K.

I A.S.J.

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no....

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :I Addl. District Judge

Case No. :MVOP/0000094/2017 Ummadisetti Prameela Vs The Arunachala Logistic pvt. ltd

Date : 30-11-2017

Business: Petitioner No.1 present on her behalf and on behalf of petitioners 3 and 4. Petitioner No.5 present. Sri C.Adinarayana advocate for the petitioners present. Sri T.Ramakrishna advocate and authorized signatory for the 2nd respondent present. Matter is settled for Rs.650000 both parties i.e petitioners advocate for the petitioners and advocate and authorized signatory for the 2nd respondent filed joint terms of compromise. Accordingly, award is passed. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 30-11-2017 I Addl. District Judge 1 of 114/09/24, 15:48

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.p...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :I Addl. District Judge

Case No. :CRLMP.BAIL/0001197/2017 Kuruba Eswaramma Vs SHO Garladinne P.S

Date : 27-11-2017

Business: Heard. order pronounced VSO. In the result the petition is allowed. The petitioners/A1 to A6 are directed to surrender before the learned Addl.Judl.I Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu within 10 days from the date of this order and on such surrender they shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bond each for Rs.20000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Nature of Disposal: ALLOWED Disposal Date: 27-11-2017 I Addl. District Judge 1 of 123/09/24, 3:05 pm

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.p...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :I Addl. District Judge

Case No. :SC/0000194/2017 SHO Dharmavaram town P.S Vs Muthukuru Baba Fakruddin-A2

Date : 28-11-2017

Business: A2,A4 and A5 are called present. Heard. A Charge U/s 147,148,302,449,324,326 and 324 IPC against accused are framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu and they denied the same and claimed to be trial. S.C.194/2017 is clubbed with S.C.270/2015. The evidence recorded in S.C.270/2015 is the evidence in S.C.194/2017. Nature of Disposal: OTHERWISE DISPOSED Disposal Date: 28-11-2017 I Addl. District Judge 1 of 123/09/24, 3:07 pm

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.p...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :I Addl. District Judge

Case No. :CRL.MP/0000659/2017 SHo Vigilence and APTS P.S Vs Boya Urababi Ravi

Date : 29-11-2017

Business: Heard. Order pronounced VSO. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.20000 with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of this court. Nature of Disposal: ALLOWED Disposal Date: 29-11-2017 I Addl. District Judge 1 of 123/09/24, 12:24 pm