Sri R.Siva Kumar

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF SESSION :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

(Before the III-Additional Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole)

Present : Sri.RAYASAM SIVA KUMAR, I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, FAC:: III Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Thursday, this the 22nd day of February, 2024.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.177/2018

From which Court the : Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, appeal is preferred Mobile Court, Ongole.

No. of the case in that Court : C.C.No.448/2016

No. of the Appeal: Crl. Appeal No.177/2018

Name & Description of the Appellant/Accused :

Nagandla Naga Lakshmi, W/o Ramalingam, Hindu, aged 46 years, R/o Chunduvari Veedhi, Ongole, Prakasam District.

…… Appellant/Accused

Name & Description of the Respondent/complainant:

1) Kota Venkata Sudheer Pavan Kumar, S/o Ranganadham, Hindu, Aged 39 years, r/o Santhapet, Ongole Prakasam District (Complainant).

2) The State of A.P. represented by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole.

…. Respondents

Sentence and law under: U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act which it was imposed in the Lower Court:

Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act and she is convicted U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C and accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and also to pay Fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for three (3) months.

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.2

Whether confirmed, modified: Conviction is Confirmed, but sentence is or reversed. Altered.

If modified, :---- the modification

Date of presentation: 13.07.2018

Date of filing: 13.07.2018

Notice issued by Court to : 16.07.2018 appear:

Bail bonds if they have been: On bail let out on bail

Appellant ordered to appear: 20.08.2018

Hearing: 15.02.2024

Order/Judgment: 22.02.2024

This appeal is coming before me on 15.02.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Nagi Reddy and Sri M.Sreedhar, Advocates for Appellant/Accused and of Additional Public Prosecutor for 2nd respondent and none for R.1 and after perusing the record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a Criminal Appeal preferred by the unsuccessful Accused against the Calendar and Judgment, dated 25.06.2018 in C.C.No.448 of 2016 passed by the learned Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, Ongole sentencing the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act.

2.One Kota Venkata Sudheer Pavan Kumar, S/o Ranganadham, (1st

Respondent herein) filed a complaint before the trial court against Nagandla

Naga Lakshmi, W/o Ramalingam (Appellant/Accused herein), alleging that the accused committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act.

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.3

3.The parties are referred to by me hereinafter as they were depicted in the complaint for the sake of convenience.

4.The provenance of case facts is that the accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only) from the complainant on 20.10.2012 for her family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the complainant or to his order on demand. On repeated demands made by the complainant for discharge of the said amount, on 20.10.2014, the accused issued cheque bearing No.002888 dated 20.10.2014 for Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only) drawn on Central Bank of India,

Ongole branch Chirala branch towards part satisfaction. But, when the cheque bearing No.002888 was presented for collection in IDBI Bank Limited, Ongole on 21.10.2014, the same was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ vide the cheque return memo dated 21.10.2014. On that, the complainant got a legal notice dated 22.10.2014 issued to the accused demanding the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the same was received by the accused on 23.10.2014 and issued reply notice, but he did not pay the amount Hence, the complaint.

5.The complaint was taken on file against the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, Ongole and the complaint was

numbered as C.C.448 of 2016. Copies of documents were supplied to the

Accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C by the trial court. The Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C by the trial court and she pleaded not guilty and

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.4 she claimed for trial.

6.In the trial afforded to both the parties, the complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and also examined one of the attestors of promissory note as PW.2 and also exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.7 on his behalf. On the other hand, the accused got herself examined as DW.1 and also examined DW.2 and also exhibited Exs.D.1 to D.8 on her behalf. After closure of evidence of both sides, the Accused was examined by the trial court as per Sec.313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence, but she denied the same.

7.After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment on 25.06.2018 that the Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and she is convicted U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C and accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and also to pay

Fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for three (3) months.

The Accused filed this Criminal Appeal.

8.The appellant is contending in the grounds of appeal that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and trial Court failed to see that the complainant was facing prosecution in two criminal cases filed against him alleging that two cheques issued by him to discharge the legally receivable debt due from him to the complainant and those two cases cheques were bounced on the ground that the he had insufficient funds and during relevant period, complainant faced financial difficulties and insolvency petition was also filed by the complainant and the

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.5 trail Court failed to see that PW.1 did not file any documents with regard to source of income, he is having amount as alleged date of Ex.P.1 and the trial

Court convicted the petitioner basing on the oral evidence without any legal evidence with regard to financial capacity and the trial Court wrongly went to the conclusion that the bank transaction of PW.1 is sufficient and the bank statement was not marked on his behalf and the trial Court convicted the accused without discussing the citations filed by the accused and the trial court failed to see in all cases signatures in cheques are admitted it cannot be said that drawer of the said cheque is liable and the trial Court pronounced the

Judgment without discussing the cross-examination of accused and in all cases, the trial Court narrated the same story under Section 20 of NI Act and the trial

Court failed to see that the sister of PW.1 filed another complaint ie.,

CC.No.27/2014 marked as Ex.D.5 against the accused in respect of another

cheque bearing No.002889 which the number of cheque in present case is 002888 and the trial Court delivered judgment in all case is one and the same without following the citations of Hon’ble High Court of A.P and the trial Court delivered its judgment without seeing Exs.D.1 to D.5.

9.I heard Learned Counsel of Appellant and Learned Public Prosecutor for

R.2.

10.Now, the points for determination are :-

1. Whether the complainant has established that the cheque was drawn by the accused on the account maintained by him?

2. Whether the Accused has rebutted the presumption

available to the complainant U/Sec.139 of N.I.Act ?

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.6

3. Whether the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable in law and on facts ?

4. To what relief ?

11.POINT Nos.1 and 2: The complainant filed his evidence affidavit as

PW-1 in lieu of his chief examination reiterating his case that on 20.10.2021, the Accused borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- from him under Ex.P1-Promissory Note, agreeing to repay with interest at 24% per annum and that the Accused issued

Ex.P.2 cheque for Rs.9,00,000/- on 20.10.2014 to discharge the above said debt due under Ex.P1 and that he presented Ex.P.2 cheque for collection, but it was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’ in the account of accused as per Ex.P.3 cheque return memo dated 21.10.2014 and that thereupon, he got Ex.P.4 office copy Legal notice dated 22.10.2014 issued to the Accused calling upon the accused to discharge the debt and the same was received by the accused under Ex.P5 acknowledgment and the accused gave

Ex.P6-reply with false allegations and that the accused intentionally failed to pay the amount due under dishonoured cheque.

12. PW-2 also filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of his chief examination corroborating the evidence of PW-1 that on 20.10.2012, the Accused borrowed

Rs.9,00,000/- from PW-1 for her family necessities in his presence agreeing to repay with interest at 24% per annum and executed Ex.P.1/Promissory note in favour of complainant and he is the 1st attestor of the Ex.P1-promissory note.

13.A contrario sensu, the accused also filed her evidence affidavit before the trial court in lieu of her chief-examination as DW.1 mainly contending that the

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.7 complainant is running a private chit business and money lending business and she is the member in the chits transaction of complainant worth Rs.50,000/- and she is successful bidder in the chit for an amount of Rs.28,500/-, but PW.1 has not given the said amount to her and after that, PW.1 gave Rs.5,000/- to her and the wife of complainant came to her house and took empty signed promissory note and signed blank cheque from her for security purpose in chits transaction and after that she lost another cheque and the same was reported to the bank for stopping of payment and after that she went to police station for reporting the matter and after that the missing cheque bearing No.2889 was filed before Chennai court by one Saritha Kumari who is sister of PW.1 and she asked PW.1 about the cheque for which PW.1 stated that he does not know about the cheque and she constructed her house in the year 2010 from the income of her husband and also they obtained bank loan and they also sold vacant site and at present house loan is pending and she has given complaint to the Bank Manager to stop proceedings for the reason that her two cheques were missed and she also gave a complaint to police for the same and PW.1 is habituated to take empty singed promissory notes and blank signed cheques in chit transaction from every member and they also filed a police complaint against PW.1. Through her evidence, Ex.D.1/Certified copy of Registered Sale

Deed, dated 11.05.2009 in the name of Puli Vijaya Sanjeeva Sagar,

Ex.D.2/Certified copy of Municipal tax receipt issued in favour of Nagandla

Ramalingam for house, Ex.D.3/Certified copy of Municipal tax receipt issued in favour of Nagandla Ramalinga for water tax, Ex.D.4/Certified copy of FIR in

Cr.No.96/2015, dated 10.06.2015 of Ongole II Town P.S, against the complainant, Ex.D.5/ Certified copy of complaint No.27/2014 on the file of Fast

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.8

Track Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai along with relevant documents filed by

S.Saritha Kumari and Ex.D.6/ Account copy of Syndicate Bank of Nagandla

Ramalingam, S/o Anjaiah bearing No.36407740000082 from 01.01.2012 to 09.03.2018 regarding housing loan statement, were marked.

14.DW.2 is Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank. He states in his evidence that the husband of DW.1 by name Nagandla Ramalingam obtained house loan in their bank on 11.06.2010 for an amount of Rs.4 lakhs under account

No.36407210000240 and it was continued upto the year 2026 and on 10.03.2011 the husband of DW.1 by name Nagandla Ramalingam obtained

additional house lone in their bank for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs under Ex.D.6 for

monthly installment amount of RS.2,100/- and it was continued upto the year 2027.

15.In the above back drop of the case and its factual matrix, learned counsel of accused/appellant adroitly relies upon a decision of Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay in the case of Shri Vinay Parulekar vs., Shri Pramod Meshram reported in 2008 CRI.L.J 2405 wherein it was held as follows:

Negotiable Instruments Act ( 26 of 1881), Ss.138, 139 – Dishonour of chequet – Issuance of cheque for discharge of debt – Proof – Failure by complainant to state as to when money in cash was paid by him to accused for return of which cheques in question were issued by accused – Admittedly complainant was unemployed – Failure by him to disclose source of income – Complainant contradicted his own previous statement thereby creating doubt about his own case – Admissions of complainant elicited in the course of his cross-examination were consistent with the defence propounded by accused – Presumption against accused rebutted – Acquittal proper.

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.9

16)Learned counsel of accused/appellant also relied upon a decision

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Mrs.Rosa Maria Fernandes vs.,

Nauso N.Kepkar reported in 2010 CRI.L.J 2159 wherein it was held as follows:

Negotiable Instruments Act ( 26 of 1881), Ss.138, 139 – Dishonour of cheque –Legally enforceable debt – Theory of ‘loan transaction’ propounded by complainant – Accused through cross-examination of complainant, demonstrated that complainant did not have financial capacity to advance any loan – Various inconsistencies and infirmities in evidence of compliainant – As per evidence on record and conduct of complainant case of accused, that after execution of sale deed in favour of complainant cheques were to be returned to accused appearing to be, more probable – Accused successfully rebutted presumption under Section 139 by raising a probable defence – Complainant is not entitled to any relief.

17)Learned counsel of accused/appellant also relied upon a decision

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anss Rajashekar vs., Augustus Jeba Anant

reported in 2019 CRI.L.J 1498 wherein it was held as follows:

Negotiable Instruments Act ( 26 of 1881), Ss.138, 139 – Dishonour of cheque – Presumption as to legally enforceable debt – Failure of complainant to establish source of funds alleged to be utilized for disbursal of loan to accused – Presence of doubt on transaction as complainant is not disclosing facts as to cheques and any steps taken by him for recover of same – Material on record rendered probability as to absence of legally enforceable debt - High court convicting accused on ground that he remained absent though notice of appeal was served, is not proper.

18)Learned counsel of accused/appellant also relied upon a decision

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.Bhoosanrao vs., Purushothamdas Pantani

reported in 1998 0 Cr.L.J 906 wherein it was held as follows:

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Sec.138 – Dishonour of cheque – Appeal against acquittal – Where the complainant has failed to prove the existence of legal enforceable debtor liability, accused cannot be punished for offence under section 138 - As the complainant failed to prove satisfactorily that he has sufficient capacity to lend the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and more so, by way of cheque and his failure to prove that the amount was actually drawn by the accused, the accused cannot be punished.

19)Learned counsel of accused/appellant also relied upon a decision

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the case of R.Chennakesava

Rao vs., P.Laxmi Narasaiah reported in 2017(2) L.S (Hyed.) 291 wherein it was held as follows:

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.10

Negotiable Instruments Act Sec.138 – “Dishonour of cheques” with endorsement “funds insufficient” - Appellant/Complainant allegedly lent Rs.2lakhs to respondent/accused – Cheques issued by respondent towards discharge of debt due to complainant were dishonoured when presented with endorsement “funds insufficient” - Hence, complaint filed by appellant/complainant for offence under Section 138 - Trial Court dismissed complaint acquitting the accused on the ground that the complainant failed to prove compliance of Cl(b) of Proviso to Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and also failed to establish that cheques issued by respondent/accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act – Hence, complainant filed present appeal, but it is dismissed as there is no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment of trial Court.

20.Whatever might be the above noted contentions and rival contentions of both the parties, in her evidence-affidavit itself, the accused categorically stated as DW.1 that she gave empty signed pronote and singed blank cheque for security purpose in chit transaction to the complainant.

Except the interested word of the accused as DW.1, there is no material placed

before this court by the accused to substantiate her defence regarding alleged

chit transaction. Admittedly, above noted Exs.D.1 to D.8 do not relate to said alleged chit transaction. But, there is the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that there is legally enforceable debt owed by the accused to the complainant under Ex.P1 promissory note, dated 20.10.2012 for Rs.9,00,000/-. It is the clear case of the complainant that Ex.P2 cheque was issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt under Ex.P.1. But, the accused is also contending that the complainant has not capacity to lend the amount to her. But, Ex.P.1 recites in favour of the case of the complainant. There is presumption of passing of consideration since

Ex.P1 is a negotiable instrument. The oral evidence of Dws.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence Exs.D1 to D8 do not rebut said presumption of passing of consideration to the accused from the complainant under Ex.P1/Promissory

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.11 note. The fact that the accused also received money from other sources is not a ground to discard the case of the complainant. In her cross-examination, the accused as DW.1 categorically admits that her name is not found in Ex.D.4 FIR as a complainant. In Ex.P.6/reply, the accused admits that she handed over the promissory note to PW.1. As already noted above, the accused is not disputing her signature either on the promissory note or on the offence cheque. So,

Section 20 of Negotiable Instrument Act also comes into play in favour of the case of complainant. The number of the offence cheque is 002888 but not 002881 or 002900. The accused as DW.1 also admits that she did not see the wife of the complainant taking away her cheque book from her house and that she did not give report to police against the wife of the complainant and that

PW.1 filed IP on the file of Addl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole and that she was added as party to said IP and the debt covered by Ex.P.1 was shown by

PW.1.

21. A fact remains that the Accused is not contending that Ex.P.2 cheque is not one of the cheque leaves of the cheque book issued to her by her banker.

To put it otherwise, the accused is not contending that Ex.P.2 cheque is not her cheque. A fact also remains that Ex.P.2 cheque was returned by the banker of the Accused under Ex.P.3 cheque return memo only on the ground that ‘Funds insufficient ’ maintained in the bank but not for the reason that the signature on Ex.P.2 cheque is not tallied with the signature of the accused. As above noted, the accused herself is admitting her signatures on Ex.P1-Promissory

Note and also Ex.P2-Cheque. The contents of Ex.P1 & P2 do not support the defence of accused. The facts of the above noted reported decisions relied

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.12 upon by the accused are different from the facts of the case at hand and therefore, they have no application to the case at hand.

22.Under the above facts and circumstances, it must be held that the complainant is able to discharge his initial legal burden that Ex.P.2 cheque was issued to him to discharge legally enforceable debt and that therefore, the burden is shifted on to the accused to rebut the presumption available to the complainant under section 139 of NI Act that Ex.P.2 Cheque was issued for discharging legally enforceable debt owed by accused to complainant. The oral evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence of Exs.D1 to D8 are not helping the accused to rebut said presumptions for the above noted reasons. As above noted, the accused failed to substantiate her defence. Thus, the accused failed to rebut said presumption of Section 139 of NI Act and that the complainant has successfully proved the guilt of the accused under section 138 of NI Act.

23.By virtue of my discussion supra, I hold Points 1 and 2 in favour of complainant and against the accused.

24.POINT No.3 :As the object and scheme of Chapter XVII of N.I.Act is to mitigate the loss sustained by the complainant and to prevent the practice of issuance of cheque without keeping sufficient balance in the account but not to see that the accused shall be sent to gallows, I hold that the nature of the sentence passed by the trial Court needs interference. This point is answered accordingly.

III-ADJ Court, Ongole Crl.Appeal No.177/2018, Dt.22.02.2024 Page No.13

25.Point No.4 : In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment dated 25.06.2018 in C.C.No.448 of 2016 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mobile Court, Ongole is confirmed. But, the nature and extent of the

sentence is altered. The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.9,10,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs ten thousand only)and in case of default, she has to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The entire fine amount shall be given to the complainant as per Section 357 (1) (a & b) of Cr.P.C. after appeal time is over. But, the amount of Rs.10,000/- already paid by the accused shall be deducted out of said amount of Rs.9,10,000/- and said amount Rs.10,000/- deposited into trial

Court shall be given to the complainant. The Trial Court is directed to take steps against the accused to undergo the sentence by the accused as per the judgment of this court.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22nd day of February, 2024.

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

I Addl. District Judge, Ongole, FAC:III-Addl. District Judge, Ongole. Copies to:

The Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, Ongole.. The Accused.

// t. c. f. b. o. //

Superintendent III-A.D & SJ Court, Ongole..

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 38 of 2023, Dt.15.04.2024 1

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT DESIGNATED FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003-cum- I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences under the

Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Monday, this the 15th (Fifteenth) day of April, 2024 [ELECTRICITY] SESSIONS CASE No.38 of 2023

=====================

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, HM Padu P.S.,

…..Complainant

And:

1.Bhupani China Ramulu, S/o Rangaiah, aged 40 years, Boya by Caste, Hasanbad village, Peddadornala Mandal.

2.Pikkili Chinna Mallikarjuna, S/o Chennaiah, aged 22 years, Boya by Caste, Hasanbad village, Peddadornala Mandal.

3.Mandla Venkateswarlu @ Aggi, S/o Gala Guravaiah, aged 36 years, Boya by Caste, Hasanbad Village, Peddadornala Mandal.

4.Mandla Narayana, S/o Yedukondalu @ Alibaba, aged 25 years, Boya by Caste, Hasanbad Village, peddadornala Mandal.

5.Shaik Basha, S/o Jana Vali, aged 48 years, Caste by Muslim, Iron Scrap Business, R/o Santhi Nagar, Beside Masjed of Nandyal Town and District. N/o Bommala Sathram, Kranthi Nagar of Nandyal. …. Accused 1 to 5.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 18.03.2024 in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor for state and of Sri P.B. Ambarish Advocate for A.1 to A.4 and of Sri K.Pullanna, Advocate for A.5 and upon 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 Case arose out of Crime No.54/2022 of HM Padu Police Station against the Accused 1 to 5 for the offences Under Sections 379 of IPC and 136(1) (a) of Electricity Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 38 of 2023, Dt.15.04.2024 2

2)In a nutshell, the facts of the case of the prosecution as per charge sheet can be noted that prior to 18.07.2022, some unknown offenders broke open transformer situated in the village fields of Rangampeta of HM Padu Mandal and committed theft of copper winding wire worth Rs.5,000/- and decamped with the booty. During course of investigation, on 02.08.2022 at 06.00 pm., at

Vemulapadu Center, HM Padu Mandal and on 05.09.2022, the Sub Inspector of

Police, HM Padu P.S., accompanied by her staff and mediators arrested the A.1 to A.4 and A.5 in the above crime, while the Accused 1 to 5 were in possession of the above said stolen property, on enquiry the Accused 1 to 5 confessed their guilt of committing theft of the case property, the police recovered the same under the cover of seizure panchanama before the punch witnesses/PW.4 and LW.4. Consequently, the Accused were got produced before the Court for judicial custody. Hence, the charge sheet.

3)This case was taken on file under section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003 against the Accused 1 to 5 for the offences under sections 379 IPC and 136(1)

(a) of Electricity Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

4)On appearance of Accused 1 to 5, case copies were furnished to them as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5) On appearance of Accused 1 to 5 before this court and upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted there with and after hearing the submissions of Learned Counsel for Defence, and Learned Special

Public Prosecutor for State, I did not discharge the Accused 1 to 5 as per

Section 227 Cr.P.C., but I framed separate alternative charges for the offence

Under Section 136 (1) (a) of Electricity Act or alternatively 136 (1) (b) of

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 38 of 2023, Dt.15.04.2024 3

Electricity Act against the Accused 1 to 5 as per Section 228(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and I read over said charges and explained to Accused 1 to 5 in Telugu Language as per Sec. 228(2) Cr.P.C. but the Accused 1 to 5 pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

6)According to the dates fixed by me for the examination of prosecution witnesses as per Sec.230 Cr.P.C, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got

Exs. P.1. to P.8 and MO.1 marked on its behalf according to Section 231 Cr.P.C.

7) After closure of evidence of prosecution, I examined the Accused 1 to 5

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by well explaining the incriminating evidence to

Accused 1 to 5 in Telugu Language. The Accused 1 to 5 denied the evidence of prosecution as being true.

8)On hearing the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the state and

Learned defence Counsel, I posted the case for Section 232 Cr.P.C.

consideration and on consideration, I held that Accused 1 to 5 have not been acquitted Under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the above noted charged offences.

9)Having been called to enter upon their defence, the Accused 1 to 5 submitted that they have no defence evidence to adduce on their behalf.

10)Later, I heard the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

State and also defence counsel.

11) Now, the points for consideration are,

1)Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused 1 to 5 for the offence Under Section 136(1)(a) Electricity Act or alternatively 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what Result ?

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 38 of 2023, Dt.15.04.2024 4

12) Point No.1: The gravamen of the 1st charge leveled against the Accused 1 to 5 is that prior to 18.07.2022, some unknown offenders broke open transformer situated in the village fields of Rangampeta of HM Padu Mandal and committed theft of copper winding wire worth Rs.5,000/- and decamped with the booty. and that Accused 1 to 5 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 136(1)(a) of Electricity Act and that the 2 nd charge is during course of investigation, on 02.08.2022 at 06.00 pm., at Vemulapadu

Center, HM Padu Mandal and on 05.09.2022, the Sub Inspector of Police, HM

Padu P.S., accompanied by her staff and mediators arrested the A.1 to A.4 and

A.5 in the above crime, while the Accused 1 to 5 were in possession of the above said stolen property, on enquiry the Accused 1 to 5 confessed their guilt of committing theft of the case property, the police recovered the same under the cover of seizure panchanama before the punch witnesses/PW.4 and LW.4 and that Accused 1 to 5 thereby committed an offence punishable under

Section 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act.

13) For proving said charges, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

PWs 1 to 6. Out of them, PW.1-D.Bikshamaiah is the ryoth, who lodged

Ex.P1/report to Lineman. PW.2-Sk.Nabi, is the then Jr.Lineman, who informed about theft of copper wire to their A.E. PW.3-N.Dinakar, is the then A.E., who lodged Ex.P.2/report to police. PW.4-M.Pitchaiah is the then V.R.A and PW.5-

A.Naresh Babu, the then VRO are the punch witnesses. PW.6-G.Krishna Pavani, the then WSI of Police, HM Padu Police Station is the investigating officer.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 38 of 2023, Dt.15.04.2024 5

14) If the prosecution’s evidence is marshalled, it comes out that PW.3-

N.Dinakar, the then AE of HM Padu Mandal and that on 19.07.2022 at 10.00 am., while he was present at his office, their Lineman/PW.2 along with PW.1 came and informed that the copper wire in the transformers situated in the fields PW.1 of Rangampeta village was committed theft of and he lodged

Ex.P.2-Report to PW.6-WSI, HM Padu Police Station, who registered the report of PW.3 as a case in Cr.No.54/2022 of HM Padu P.S and submitted Ex.P.6-FIR to the court and she also altered section of law Ex.P.7-Memo of alteration and also prepared Ex.P8-rough sketch of scene of offence and consequently, the SI of Police, laid charge sheet.

15)To boot (paiga in telugu), the evidence of prosecution also reads that on 02.08.2022 at about 03.30 pm., on credible information, WSI of Police, HM Padu

Police Station (PW.6) secured PW.4 and LW.4 and went to Lingamgunta Bus

Shelter, where the accused 1 to 4 tried to escape from there, but, she caught hold of them, on enquiry, accused 1 to 4 confessed about the commission of offence in other crimes and she seized MO.1/10kgs of copper wire from the accused 1 to 4 under the cover of Ex.P.3/Seizure Panchanama in the presence of punch witnesses and arrested the accused 1 to 4 and took them to police station and on 26.08.2022 at about 18.30 pm., on credible information, WSI of

Police, HM Padu Police Station (PW.6) secured PW.4 and LW.4 and went to

Santhi Nagar, Nandyal, on enquiry, she arrested the accused 5 basing on the confessional statement of accused 1 to 4 under the cover of

Ex.P.5/Mediatornama in the presence of punch witnesses and took him to police station.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 38 of 2023, Dt.15.04.2024 6

16)If the above noted evidence of prosecution is appreciated carefully,

Ex.P.3/Panchanama contains the crime numbers and sections of law with exact particulars as if the accused themselves stated said particulars. It is improbable to believe that the accused could state said particulars at once without reference to any paper. Ex.P.3/Panchanama does not contain the actual statement of the accused but the contents of Ex.P.3/Panchanama are found written as if the accused narrated them. It is against the law. The investigating officer is supposed to have got the actual words of the accused mentioned in the Ex.P.3/Panchanama. To put it differently, the actual words of the accused should have been recorded in the 1st person. Admittedly, the mediators for

Ex.P.3/Panchanama are not the natives of the alleged spot of seizure. Thus, the mandatory requirements of section 100 Cr.P.C. have not been complied by the prosecution in the case. Of course, respectability is the mandatory and locality is directory as can be seen from the language employed in section 100 of

Cr.P.C. But, the investigating officer is obliged to secure the presence of local inhabitants whenever there is possibility and if there is no such possibility, she can proceed with the mediators picking them from elsewhere but no such plausible explanation is forthcoming in this case.

17) The offence took place prior to 18.07.2022, but the alleged recovery was made on 02.08.2022. It is the case of the prosecution that the case property was nabbed as above noted. It seems that the accused have been waiting for the police by keeping said case property with them and wandering all through right from the date of offence as if the police would come and arrest them and thereby to facilitate the police and cooperate the investigating officer. I do not find substance in the said contention. No person much less the accused would

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 38 of 2023, Dt.15.04.2024 7 keep the stolen property with them for such a long time and wander on the roads. Moreover, the insouciance of the investigating officer without securing local punch witnesses and picking the punch witnesses elsewhere and not at the place where the accused were nabbed is another strong circumstance to doubt the investigation and to doubt the alleged recovery of case property from the possession of accused. No prudent person much less the accused would wander on the roads by keeping the stolen property with them. It cannot be lost sight of it that it was alleged that the accused habitually deal or receive stolen property and in such a case with all the experience they had, they would not keep the stolen property with them for such long time and they would have liquidated the stolen property long back after they stole them. This is another weighing circumstance improbabilising the story of prosecution that the accused were nabbed when they were in possession of the stolen property. It is also a million dollar’s question that how could the investigating officer identify the offence property in the absence of any descriptive particulars in the FIR.

Ex.P.3/Panchanama is in the nature of confessional statement of the Accused which is hit by sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.3-Panchanama does not recite that the offence property was distinctly discovered by investigating officer in consequence of information furnished by the accused.

Thus, the evidence of PW.6 does not satisfy the legal requirement of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as to the alleged recovery of property from the possession of accused. I, therefore, hold that it is not sagacious to rely upon the evidence of the punch witness (PW.4) and the investigating officer(PW.6).

18)Admittedly, there is no direct evidence against the accused in the case regarding the charge of Section 136(1)(a) of Electricity Act. But the

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 38 of 2023, Dt.15.04.2024 8 prosecution relied upon the above noted evidence regarding the charge of

Section 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act. But, the evidence of prosecution is not to the effect of attributing the knowledge or reasonable belief to accused regarding the alleged case property said to have been seized from them as stolen property. Thus, the necessary ingredients of the offence of Section 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act namely knowledge or reasonable belief of accused regarding the property allegedly found in possession of the accused to be stolen property are lacking. As is known to all, there is a presumption illustration (a) of section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872 to the effect “that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”. But as already discussed above, the alleged recovery from the accused is not soon after the theft. So, said presumption is not available to the prosecution in this case.

19)In view of the discussion supra, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused 1 to 5 for the charged offence under Sections 136(1)(a) or 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

20) Point No.2 : In the result, the Accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act and consequently, the Accused 1 to 5 are acquitted under section 235(1)

Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity

Act. The bail bonds of the Accused 1 to 5 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1-10kgs

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 38 of 2023, Dt.15.04.2024 9 of copper wire shall be given to PW.3 or any responsible person of APSPDCL,

HM Padu Mandal after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 15th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Special Judge under Electricity Act-cum-

I Addl. Dist. &Sessions Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

PW-1 : D.Bikshumaiah -NIL- PW-2 : Sk.Nabi, the then Jr.Lineman PW-3 : N.Dinakar, the then A.E PW-4 : M.Pitchaiah, the then VRA PW-5 : A.Naresh Babu, the then VRO, PW-6 : G.Krishna Pavani, the then SI of Police

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex. P1 : Report of PW.1 Nil Ex. P2 : Report of PW.3 given to police Ex. P3 : Confessional Mediatornama, Ex. P4 : Mediatornama Ex. P5 : Mediatornama Ex. P6 : First Information Report in Cr.No.54/2022 Ex. P7 : Alteration memo Ex. P8 : Rough sketch of scene of offence

Material Objects marked

M.O.1/-- 10kgs of Copper wire

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Spl. Judge-cum- I-ADJ/Ongole.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 38 of 2023, Dt.15.04.2024 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT DESIGNATED FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003-cum- I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences under the

Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Monday, this the 15th (Fifteenth) day of April, 2024 [ELECTRICITY] SESSIONS CASE No.38 of 2023

=====================

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, HM Padu P.S.,

…..Complainant

And:

1.Bhupani China Ramulu, S/o Rangaiah, aged 40 years, Boya by Caste, Hasanbad village, Peddadornala Mandal.

2.Pikkili Chinna Mallikarjuna, S/o Chennaiah, aged 22 years, Boya by Caste, Hasanbad village, Peddadornala Mandal.

3.Mandla Venkateswarlu @ Aggi, S/o Gala Guravaiah, aged 36 years, Boya by Caste, Hasanbad Village, Peddadornala Mandal.

4.Mandla Narayana, S/o Yedukondalu @ Alibaba, aged 25 years, Boya by Caste, Hasanbad Village, peddadornala Mandal.

5.Shaik Basha, S/o Jana Vali, aged 48 years, Caste by Muslim, Iron Scrap Business, R/o Santhi Nagar, Beside Masjed of Nandyal Town and District. N/o Bommala Sathram, Kranthi Nagar of Nandyal. …. Accused 1 to 5.

Sections of Law…… Charge No.1 : 136(1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003, Alternative Charge : 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003,

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Date of Offence: Prior to 18.07.2022

Date of Report of Compliant:20.07.2022

Date of Apprehension of Accused: 03.08.2022

Date of Release on Bail: 22.12.2022

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 38 of 2023, Dt.15.04.2024 11

Date of commitment: --

Date of Commencement of Trial: 05.02.2024

Date of Closure of Trial: 12.02.2024

Date of Sentence or Order: 15.04.2024

Result of the Case : In the result, the Accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act and consequently, the Accused 1 to 5 are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act. The bail bonds of the Accused 1 to 5 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1-10kgs of copper wire shall be given to PW.3 or any responsible person of APSPDCL, HM Padu Mandal after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay in Trial Court : This case is taken on file under Section 379 of IPC, Section.136 (1) (a) of Electricity Actj and Section 3 of PDPP Act. Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On 12.12.2023, accused were charged under sections 136 (1)( a) or alternatively 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003, on hearing both sides, and the contents of the charges are read over and explained to them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In this case, trial was commenced on 05.02.2024 and closed by 12.02.2024 and during the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.6 and relied on Exs.P.1 to P.8 and MO.1 and posted for 313 Cr.P.C Examination. On 16.02.2024, accused have been examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, in the light of incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses after completion of prosecution evidence. No defence witnesses are examined nor any documents are marked for the accused and heard arguments on 18.03.2024 and posted for Judgment. On 15.04.2024 judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences

under the Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,) Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District-522237.

Copies to :

1.The Director of Prosecutions, Vijayawada.

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole

3. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Electricity Act-cum-I-ADJ Court, Ongole.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 61 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 1

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT DESIGNATED FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003-cum- I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences under the

Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 16th (Sixteenth) day of April, 2024 [ELECTRICITY] SESSIONS CASE No.61 of 2023

=====================

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Tripuranthakam P.S.,

…..Complainant

And:

Simhadri Ravi, S/o Nagaraju, aged 42 years, Viswabrahmin by Caste, Garataiah Colony, Addanki Town.

…. Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 18.03.2024 in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor for state and of Sri G.Ravi Sankar, Legal Aid Defence Counsel for Accused and upon 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 Case arose out of Crime No.86/2023 of Tripuranthakam Police

Station against the Accused for the offences Under Sections 379 or 411 of IPC and 136(1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 & Section 3 of PDPP Act.

2)In a nutshell, the facts of the case of the prosecution as per charge sheet can be noted that prior to 10.06.2023, some unknown offenders broke open 25

KVA five distribution transformers situated in the village fields of Medapi,

Dupadu and Kesinenipalli villages of Tripuranthakam Mandal and committed

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No.61 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 2 theft of copper winding wire weighing about 25kgs worth Rs.25,000/- and decamped with the booty. During course of investigation, on 14.07.2023 at 02.00 pm., at Pond, ledt side of God Krishna temple, on the Western side of

Donakonda to Podili Road, Peddannapalem village, Donakonda Mandal, the Sub

Inspector of Police, Donakonda P.S., accompanied by his staff and mediators arrested the Accused, in the above crime, while the Accused was in possession of the above said stolen property, on enquiry the Accused confessed his guilt of committing theft of the case property, the police recovered the same under the cover of seizure panchanama before the punch witnesses/PW.13 and LW.20.

Consequently, the Accused was got produced before the Court for judicial custody. Hence, the charge sheet.

3)This case was taken on file under section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003 against the Accused for the offences under sections 379 r/w 411 of IPC and 136(1) (a) of Electricity Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

4)On appearance of Accused, case copies were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5) On appearance of Accused before this court and upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted there with and after hearing the submissions of Learned Counsel for Defence, and Learned Special Public

Prosecutor for State, I did not discharge the Accused as per Section 227 Cr.P.C., but I framed separate alternative charges for the offence Under Section 136(1)

(a) of Electricity Act or alternatively 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act against the

Accused as per Section 228(1)(b) Cr.P.C., and I read over said charges and

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No.61 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 3 explained to Accused in Telugu Language as per Sec. 228(2) Cr.P.C. but the

Accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

6)According to the dates fixed by me for the examination of prosecution witnesses as per Sec.230 Cr.P.C, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and got Exs. P.1 to P.9 marked on its behalf according to Section 231 Cr.P.C.

7) After closure of evidence of prosecution, I examined the Accused Under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. by well explaining the incriminating evidence to Accused in

Telugu Language. The Accused denied the evidence of prosecution as being true.

8)On hearing the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the state and

Learned defence Counsel, I posted the case for Section 232 Cr.P.C.

consideration and on consideration, I held that Accused has not been acquitted

Under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the above noted charged offences.

9)Having been called to enter upon their defence, the Accused submitted that he has no defence evidence to adduce on his behalf.

10)Later, I heard the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

State and also defence counsel.

11) Now, the points for consideration are

1) Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offence Under Section 136(1)(a) Electricity Act or alternatively 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what Result ?

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No.61 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 4

12) Point No.1: The gravamen of the 1st charge leveled against the Accused is that prior to 10.06.2023, some unknown offenders broke open 25 KVA five distribution transformers situated in the village fields of Medapi, Dupadu and

Kesinenipalli villages of Tripuranthakam Mandal and committed theft of copper winding wire weighing about 25kgs worth Rs.25,000/- and decamped with the booty and that Accused thereby committed an offence punishable under

Section 136(1)(a) of Electricity Act and that the 2 nd charge is during course of investigation, on 14.07.2023 at 02.00 pm., at Pond, ledt side of God Krishna temple, on the Western side of Donakonda to Podili Road, Peddannapalem village, Donakonda Mandal, the Sub Inspector of Police, Donakonda P.S., accompanied by his staff and mediators arrested the Accused, in the above crime, while the Accused was in possession of the above said stolen property, on enquiry the Accused confessed his guilt of committing theft of the case property, the police recovered the same under the cover of seizure panchanama before the punch witnesses/PW.13 and LW.20 and that Accused thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 136(1)(b) of

Electricity Act.

13) For proving said charges, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

PWs 1 to 14. Out of them, PW.1-Ch.Suresh is the then A.E., of Tripuranthakam

Mandal who lodged Ex.P.1/report to police. PW.2-A.Chinna Chenchaiah, PW.9-

Lineman and PW.10-U.Tirupathi Reddy are the Linemen of APSPDCL, who informed about the office to their A.E. PW.3-G.Venkateswarlu, PW.4-

T.Venkateswarlu, PW.5-M.Ramana, PW.6-K.Ramana, PW.7-A.Srinivasa Reddy,

PW.8-D.Venkata Reddy, PW.11-I.Vengaiah and PW.12-D.Alluraiah are the circumstantial witnesses. PW.13-Sk.Hussain Saheb, the then VRO, is the punch

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No.61 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 5 witness. PW.14M.Saida Babu, the then Sub Inspector of Police, is the investigating officer.

14) If the prosecution’s evidence is marshalled, it comes out that PW.1 is the then A.E, of Tripuranthakam Mandal and that on 10.06.2023 at about 19.00 hours while he was present at his office, their Lineman/PW.2 along with PWs.3 & 4 and LW.5-Potla Venkateswarlu came and informed about theft of copper wire from the transformers situated in the fields of Annasamudram and Medapi villages and then they all visited the scene of offence and observed the same, then A.E., lodged Ex.P.1-Report to SI of Police, Tripuranthakam P.S., who registered the report of PW.1 as a case in Cr.No.86/2023 of Tripuranthakam P.S and submitted Ex.P.3-FIR to the court and also prepared Exs.P.4 to P.8-rough sketches of scenes of offences and also Ex.P.9/bunch of photographs.

15)To boot (paiga in telugu), the evidence of prosecution also reads that on 14.07.2023 at about 14.00 hours, SI of Police, Donakonda Police Station (PW.14) secured PW.13 and LW.20 and proceeded near Krishna Temple of

Donakonda-Podili road and he seized the case property 25kgs of Copper Wire involved in this case along with the case property of other cases from the accused under the cover of Ex.P.2/Seizure Panchanama in the presence of punch witnesses and arrested the accused and took him to police station.

16)If the above noted evidence of prosecution is appreciated carefully,

Ex.P.2/Panchanama contains the crime numbers and sections of law with exact particulars as if the accused himself stated said particulars. It is improbable to believe that the accused could state said particulars at once without reference to any paper. Ex.P.2/Panchanama does not contain the actual statement of the

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No.61 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 6 accused but the contents of Ex.P.2/Panchanama are found written as if the accused narrated them. It is against the law. The investigating officer is supposed to have got the actual words of the accused mentioned in the Ex.P.2/

Panchanama. To put it differently, the actual words of the accused should have been recorded in the 1st person. Admittedly, the mediators for Ex.P.2/

Panchanama are not the natives of the alleged spot of seizure. Thus, the mandatory requirements of section 100 Cr.P.C. have not been complied by the prosecution in the case. Of course, respectability is the mandatory and locality is directory as can be seen from the language employed in section 100 of

Cr.P.C. But, the investigating officer is obliged to secure the presence of local inhabitants whenever there is possibility and if there is no such possibility, he can proceed with the mediators picking them from elsewhere but no such plausible explanation is forthcoming in this case.

17) The offence took place prior to 10.06.2023, but the alleged recovery was made on 14.07.2023. It is the case of the prosecution that the case property was nabbed as above noted. It seems that the accused has been waiting for the police by keeping said case property with him and wandering all through right from the date of offence as if the police would come and arrest him and thereby to facilitate the police and cooperate the investigating officer. I do not find substance in the said contention. No person much less the accused would keep the stolen property with him for such a long time and wander on the roads. Moreover, the insouciance of the investigating officer without securing local punch witnesses and picking the punch witnesses elsewhere and not at the place where the accused was nabbed is another strong circumstance to doubt the investigation and to doubt the alleged recovery of case property

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No.61 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 7 from the possession of accused. No prudent person much less the accused would wander on the roads by keeping the stolen property with him. It cannot be lost sight of it that it was alleged that the accused habitually deal or receive stolen property and in such a case with all the experience he had, he would not keep the stolen property with him for such long time and he would had liquidated the stolen property long back after he stole them. This is another weighing circumstance improbabilising the story of prosecution that the accused was nabbed when he was in possession of the stolen property. It is also a million dollar’s question that how could the investigating officer identify the offence property in the absence of any descriptive particulars in the FIR.

Ex.P.2/Panchanama are in the nature of confessional statement of the Accused which is hit by sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.2/Panchanama does not recite that the offence property was distinctly discovered by investigating officer in consequence of information furnished by the accused.

Thus, the evidence of PW.14 does not satisfy the legal requirement of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as to the alleged recovery of property from the possession of accused. I, therefore, hold that it is not sagacious to rely upon the evidence of the punch witness (PW.13) and the investigating officer(PW.14).

18)Admittedly, there is no direct evidence against the accused in the case regarding the charge of Section 136(1)(a) of Electricity Act. But the prosecution relied upon the above noted evidence regarding the charge of

Section 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act. But, the evidence of prosecution is not to the effect of attributing the knowledge or reasonable belief to accused regarding the alleged case property said to have been seized from him as

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No.61 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 8 stolen property. Thus, the necessary ingredients of the offence of Section 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act namely knowledge or reasonable belief of accused regarding the property allegedly found in possession of the accused to be stolen property are lacking. As is known to all, there is a presumption illustration (a) of section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872 to the effect “that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”. But as already discussed above, the alleged recovery from the accused is not soon after the theft. So, said presumption is not available to the prosecution in this case.

19)In view of the discussion supra, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the charged offence under Sections 136(1)(a) or 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

20) Point No.2 : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act and consequently, the Accused is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property shall be given to PW.1 or any responsible person of APSPDCL, Tripuranthakam Mandal after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 16th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Special Judge under Electricity Act-cum-

I Addl. Dist. &Sessions Judge, Ongole.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No.61 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

PW-1 : Ch.Suresh, the then A.E -NIL- PW-2 : A.Chinna Chenchaiah, the then Lineman PW-3 : G.Venkateswarlu PW-4 : T.Venkateswarlu PW-5 : M.Ramana PW-6 : K.Ramana PW-7 : A.Srinivasa Reddy PW-8 : D.Venkata Reddy PW-9 : G.Venkateswarlu, the then Lineman PW-10 : U.Thirupathi Reddy, the then Jr.Lineman PW-11 : I.Vengaiah PW-12 : D.Alluraiah PW-13 : Sk.Hussain Saheb, the then V.R.O., PW-14 : M.Saidu Babu, the then SI of Police

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex. P1 : Report of PW.1 given to Police Nil Ex. P2 : Seizure Panchanama, dated 14.07.2023 Ex. P3 : First Information Report in Cr.No.86/2023 Ex. P4 : Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex. P5: Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex. P6: Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex. P7: Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex. P8: Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex. P9: Bunch of photos

Material Objects marked

- NIL -

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Spl. Judge-cum- I-ADJ/Ongole.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No.61 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT DESIGNATED FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003-cum- I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences under the

Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 16th (Sixteenth) day of April, 2024 [ELECTRICITY] SESSIONS CASE No.61 of 2023

=====================

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Tripuranthakam P.S.,

…..Complainant

And:

Simhadri Ravi, S/o Nagaraju, aged 42 years, Viswabrahmin by Caste, Garataiah Colony, Addanki Town. …. Accused

Sections of Law…… Charge No.1 : 136(1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003, Alternative Charge : 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003,

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Date of Offences: Prior to 10.06.2023

Date of Report of Compliant: 10.06.2023

Date of Apprehension of Accused: 14.08.2023

Date of Release on Bail: 01.11.2023

Date of commitment: --

Date of Commencement of Trial: 22.01.2024

Date of Closure of Trial: 20.02.2024

Date of Sentence or Order: 16.04.2024

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No.61 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 11

Result of the Case : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act and consequently, the Accused is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property shall be given to PW.1 or any responsible person of APSPDCL, Tripuranthakam Mandal after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay in Trial Court : This case is taken on file under Section 379 of IPC, Section.136 (1) (a) of Electricity Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act. Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On 03.01.2024, accused was charged under sections 136 (1)( a) or alternatively 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003, on hearing both sides, and the contents of the charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In this case, trial was commenced on 22.01.2024 and closed by 20.02.2024 and during the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.14 and relied on Exs.P.1 to P.9 and posted for 313 Cr.P.C Examination. On 06.03.2024, accused has been examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, in the light of incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses after completion of prosecution evidence. No defence witnesses are examined nor any documents are marked for the accused and heard arguments on 18.03.2024 and posted for Judgment. On 16.04.2024 judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences

under the Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,) Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District-522237.

Copies to :

1.The Director of Prosecutions, Vijayawada.

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole

3. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, Electricity Act-cum-I-ADJ Court, Ongole.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 62 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 1

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT DESIGNATED FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003-cum- I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences under the

Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 16th (Sixteenth) day of April, 2024 [ELECTRICITY] SESSIONS CASE No.62 of 2023

=====================

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Tripuranthakam P.S.,

…..Complainant

And:

Simhadri Ravi, S/o Nagaraju, aged 42 years, Viswabrahmin by Caste, Garataiah Colony, Addanki Town. …. Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 18.03.2024 in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor for state and of Sri G.Ravi Sankar, Legal Aid Defence Counsel for Accused and upon 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 Case arose out of Crime No.106/2023 of Tripuranthakam Police

Station against the Accused for the offences Under Sections 379 r/w 411 of IPC and 136(1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 & Section 3 of PDPP Act.

2)In a nutshell, the facts of the case of the prosecution as per charge sheet can be noted that prior to 04.07.2023, some unknown offenders broke open 16

KVA distribution transformers situated in the village fields of Gollapalli of

Tripuranthakam Mandal and committed theft of copper winding wire weighing about 8kgs worth Rs.8,000/- and decamped with the booty. During course of investigation, on 14.07.2023 at 02.00 pm., at Pond, ledt side of God Krishna

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 62 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 2 temple, on the Western side of Donakonda to Podili Road, Peddannapalem village, Donakonda Mandal, the Sub Inspector of Police, Donakonda P.S., accompanied by his staff and mediators arrested the Accused, in the above crime, while the Accused was in possession of the above said stolen property, on enquiry the Accused confessed his guilt of committing theft of the case property, the police recovered the same under the cover of seizure panchanama before the punch witnesses/PW.4 and LW.6. Consequently, the

Accused was got produced before the Court for judicial custody. Hence, the charge sheet.

3)This case was taken on file under section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003 against the Accused for the offences under sections 379 r/w 411 of IPC and 136(1) (a) of Electricity Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

4)On appearance of Accused, case copies were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5) On appearance of Accused before this court and upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted there with and after hearing the submissions of Learned Counsel for Defence, and Learned Special Public

Prosecutor for State, I did not discharge the Accused as per Section 227 Cr.P.C., but I framed separate alternative charges for the offence Under Section 136(1)

(a) of Electricity Act or alternatively 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act against the

Accused as per Section 228(1)(b) Cr.P.C., and I read over said charges and explained to Accused in Telugu Language as per Sec. 228(2) Cr.P.C. but the

Accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 62 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 3

6)According to the dates fixed by me for the examination of prosecution witnesses as per Sec.230 Cr.P.C, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got

Exs. P.1 to P.5 marked on its behalf according to Section 231 Cr.P.C.

7) After closure of evidence of prosecution, I examined the Accused Under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. by well explaining the incriminating evidence to Accused in

Telugu Language. The Accused denied the evidence of prosecution as being true.

8)On hearing the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the state and

Learned defence Counsel, I posted the case for Section 232 Cr.P.C.

consideration and on consideration, I held that Accused has not been acquitted

Under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the above noted charged offences.

9)Having been called to enter upon their defence, the Accused submitted that he has no defence evidence to adduce on his behalf.

10)Later, I heard the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

State and also defence counsel.

11) Now, the points for consideration are

1) Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offence Under Section 136(1)(a) Electricity Act or alternatively 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what Result ?

12) Point No.1: The gravamen of the 1st charge leveled against the Accused is that prior to 04.07.2023, some unknown offenders broke open 16 KVA distribution transformers situated in the village fields of Gollapalli of

Tripuranthakam Mandal and committed theft of copper winding wire weighing

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 62 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 4 about 8kgs worth Rs.8,000/- and decamped with the booty and that Accused thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 136(1)(a) of

Electricity Act and that the 2 nd charge is during course of investigation, on 14.07.2023 at 02.00 pm., at Pond, left side of God Krishna temple, on the

Western side of Donakonda to Podili Road, Peddannapalem village, Donakonda

Mandal, the Sub Inspector of Police, Donakonda P.S., accompanied by his staff and mediators arrested the Accused, in the above crime, while the Accused was in possession of the above said stolen property, on enquiry the Accused confessed his guilt of committing theft of the case property, the police recovered the same under the cover of seizure panchanama before the punch witnesses/PW.4 and LW.6 and that Accused thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act.

13) For proving said charges, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

PWs 1 to 6. Out of them, PW.1-Ch.Suresh is the then A.E., of Tripuranthakam

Mandal who lodged Ex.P.1/report to police. PW.2-B.Venkata Ramanaiah is the circumstantial witness. PW.3-Y.Mallikarjuna Reddy, is the then Lineman, who informed about theft of copper wire to their A.E. PW.4-Sk.Hussain Saheb, the then VRO, is the punch witness. PW.5-S.Bhaskar Reddy, the then ASI of Police and PW.6-M.Saida Babu, the then Sub Inspector of Police, are the investigating officers.

14) If the prosecution’s evidence is marshalled, it comes out that PW.1 is the then A.E, of Tripuranthakam Mandal and that on 04.07.2023 at about 10.00 am., while he was present at his office, their Lineman/PW.3 along with PW.2,

LW.4-Sirigiri Pandu and LW.5-Bathini Venkata Ramaiah came and informed about theft of copper wire from the transformers situated in the fields of

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 62 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 5

Gollapalli village and then they all visited the scene of offence and observed the same, then A.E., lodged Ex.P.1-Report to Asst., SI of Police, Tripuranthakam

P.S.,(PW.5) who registered the report of PW.1 as a case in Cr.No.106/2023 of

Tripuranthakam P.S and submitted Ex.P.3-FIR to the court and also prepared

Ex.P.4-rough sketch of scene of offence and also got taken Ex.P.5/bunch of photographs along with CD.

15)To boot (paiga in telugu), the evidence of prosecution also reads that on 14.07.2023 at about 14.00 hours, SI of Police, Donakonda Police Station (PW.6) secured PW.4 and LW.6 and proceeded near Krishna Temple of Donakonda-

Podili road and he seized the case property 8kgs of Copper Wire involved in this case along with the case property of other cases from the accused under the cover of Ex.P.2/Seizure Panchanama in the presence of punch witnesses and arrested the accused and took him to police station.

16)If the above noted evidence of prosecution is appreciated carefully,

Ex.P.2/Panchanama contains the crime numbers and sections of law with exact particulars as if the accused himself stated said particulars. It is improbable to believe that the accused could state said particulars at once without reference to any paper. Ex.P.2/Panchanama does not contain the actual statement of the accused but the contents of Ex.P.2/Panchanama are found written as if the accused narrated them. It is against the law. The investigating officer is supposed to have got the actual words of the accused mentioned in the Ex.P.2/

Panchanama. To put it differently, the actual words of the accused should have been recorded in the 1st person. Admittedly, the mediators for Ex.P.2/

Panchanama are not the natives of the alleged spot of seizure. Thus, the mandatory requirements of section 100 Cr.P.C. have not been complied by the

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 62 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 6 prosecution in the case. Of course, respectability is the mandatory and locality is directory as can be seen from the language employed in section 100 of

Cr.P.C. But, the investigating officer is obliged to secure the presence of local inhabitants whenever there is possibility and if there is no such possibility, he can proceed with the mediators picking them from elsewhere but no such plausible explanation is forthcoming in this case.

17) The offence took place prior to 04.07.2023, but the alleged recovery was made on 14.07.2023. It is the case of the prosecution that the case property was nabbed as above noted. It seems that the accused has been waiting for the police by keeping said case property with him and wandering all through right from the date of offence as if the police would come and arrest him and thereby to facilitate the police and cooperate the investigating officer. I do not find substance in the said contention. No person much less the accused would keep the stolen property with him for such a long time and wander on the roads. Moreover, the insouciance of the investigating officer without securing local punch witnesses and picking the punch witnesses elsewhere and not at the place where the accused was nabbed is another strong circumstance to doubt the investigation and to doubt the alleged recovery of case property from the possession of accused. No prudent person much less the accused would wander on the roads by keeping the stolen property with him. It cannot be lost sight of it that it was alleged that the accused habitually deal or receive stolen property and in such a case with all the experience he had, he would not keep the stolen property with him for such long time and he would had liquidated the stolen property long back after he stole them. This is another weighing circumstance improbabilising the story of prosecution that the

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 62 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 7 accused was nabbed when he was in possession of the stolen property. It is also a million dollar’s question that how could the investigating officer identify the offence property in the absence of any descriptive particulars in the FIR.

Ex.P.2/Panchanama are in the nature of confessional statement of the Accused which is hit by sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.2/Panchanama does not recite that the offence property was distinctly discovered by investigating officer in consequence of information furnished by the accused.

Thus, the evidence of PW.6 does not satisfy the legal requirement of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as to the alleged recovery of property from the possession of accused. I, therefore, hold that it is not sagacious to rely upon the evidence of the punch witness (PW.4) and the investigating officer(PW.6).

18)Admittedly, there is no direct evidence against the accused in the case regarding the charge of Section 136(1)(a) of Electricity Act. But the prosecution relied upon the above noted evidence regarding the charge of

Section 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act. But, the evidence of prosecution is not to the effect of attributing the knowledge or reasonable belief to accused regarding the alleged case property said to have been seized from him as stolen property. Thus, the necessary ingredients of the offence of Section 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act namely knowledge or reasonable belief of accused regarding the property allegedly found in possession of the accused to be stolen property are lacking. As is known to all, there is a presumption illustration (a) of section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872 to the effect “that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”. But as already discussed above, the alleged

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 62 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 8 recovery from the accused is not soon after the theft. So, said presumption is not available to the prosecution in this case.

19)In view of the discussion supra, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the charged offence under Sections 136(1)(a) or 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

20) Point No.2 : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act and consequently, the Accused is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property shall be given to PW.1 or any responsible person of APSPDCL, Tripuranthakam Mandal after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 16th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Special Judge under Electricity Act-cum-

I Addl. Dist. &Sessions Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

PW-1 : Ch.Suresh, the then A.E -NIL- PW-2 : B.Venkata Ramanaiah PW-3 : Y.Mallikarjna Reddy, the then Lineman PW-4 : Sk.Hussain Saheb, the then V.R.O., PW-5 : S.Bhaskar Reddy, the then ASI of Police PW-6 : M.Saidu Babu, the then SI of Police

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 62 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 9

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex. P1 : Report of PW.1 given to Police Nil Ex. P2 : Seizure Panchanama, dated 14.07.2023 Ex. P3 : First Information Report in Cr.No.106/2023 Ex. P4 : Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex. P5 : Bunch of photos along with CD

Material Objects marked

- NIL -

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Spl. Judge-cum- I-ADJ/Ongole.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 62 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT DESIGNATED FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003-cum- I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences under the

Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 16th (Sixteenth) day of April, 2024 [ELECTRICITY] SESSIONS CASE No.62 of 2023

=====================

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Tripuranthakam P.S.,

…..Complainant

And:

Simhadri Ravi, S/o Nagaraju, aged 42 years, Viswabrahmin by Caste, Garataiah Colony, Addanki Town. …. Accused

Sections of Law…… Charge No.1 : 136(1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003, Alternative Charge : 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003,

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Date of Offences: Prior to 04.07.2023

Date of Report of Compliant: 11.07.2023

Date of Apprehension of Accused: 14.08.2023

Date of Release on Bail: 01.11.2023

Date of commitment: --

Date of Commencement of Trial: 22.01.2024

Date of Closure of Trial: 20.02.2024

Date of Sentence or Order: 16.04.2024

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 62 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 11

Result of the Case : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act and consequently, the Accused is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property shall be given to PW.1 or any responsible person of APSPDCL, Tripuranthakam Mandal after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay in Trial Court : This case is taken on file under Section 379 of IPC, Section.136 (1) (a) of Electricity Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act. Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On 03.01.2024, accused was charged under sections 136 (1)( a) or alternatively 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003, on hearing both sides, and the contents of the charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In this case, trial was commenced on 22.01.2024 and closed by 20.02.2024 and during the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.6 and relied on Exs.P.1 to P.5 and posted for 313 Cr.P.C Examination. On 06.03.2024, accused has been examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, in the light of incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses after completion of prosecution evidence. No defence witnesses are examined nor any documents are marked for the accused and heard arguments on 18.03.2024 and posted for Judgment. On 16.04.2024 judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences

under the Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,) Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District-522237.

Copies to :

1.The Director of Prosecutions, Vijayawada.

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole

3. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, Electricity Act-cum-I-ADJ Court, Ongole.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 63 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 1

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT DESIGNATED FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003-cum- I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences under the

Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 16th (Sixteenth) day of April, 2024 [ELECTRICITY] SESSIONS CASE No.63 of 2023

=====================

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Tripuranthakam P.S.,

…..Complainant

And:

Simhadri Ravi, S/o Nagaraju, aged 42 years, Viswabrahmin by Caste, Garataiah Colony, Addanki Town. …. Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 18.03.2024 in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor for state and of Sri G.Ravi Sankar, Legal Aid Defence Counsel for Accused and upon 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 Case arose out of Crime No.98/2023 of Tripuranthakam Police

Station against the Accused for the offences Under Sections 379 r/w 411 of IPC and 136(1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 & Section 3 of PDPP Act.

2)In a nutshell, the facts of the case of the prosecution as per charge sheet can be noted that prior to 25.06.2023, some unknown offenders broke open 25

KVA distribution transformers situated in the village fields of Viswanadhapuram of Tripuranthakam Mandal and committed theft of copper winding wire weighing about 10kgs worth Rs.10,000/- and decamped with the booty. During course of investigation, on 14.07.2023 at 02.00 pm., at Pond, ledt side of God

Krishna temple, on the Western side of Donakonda to Podili Road,

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 63 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 2

Peddannapalem village, Donakonda Mandal, the Sub Inspector of Police,

Donakonda P.S., accompanied by his staff and mediators arrested the Accused, in the above crime, while the Accused was in possession of the above said stolen property, on enquiry the Accused confessed his guilt of committing theft of the case property, the police recovered the same under the cover of seizure panchanama before the punch witnesses/PW.5 and LW.7. Consequently, the

Accused was got produced before the Court for judicial custody. Hence, the charge sheet.

3)This case was taken on file under section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003 against the Accused for the offences under sections 379 r/w 411 of IPC and 136(1) (a) of Electricity Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

4)On appearance of Accused, case copies were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5) On appearance of Accused before this court and upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted there with and after hearing the submissions of Learned Counsel for Defence, and Learned Special Public

Prosecutor for State, I did not discharge the Accused as per Section 227 Cr.P.C., but I framed separate alternative charges for the offence Under Section 136(1)

(a) of Electricity Act or alternatively 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act against the

Accused as per Section 228(1)(b) Cr.P.C., and I read over said charges and explained to Accused in Telugu Language as per Sec. 228(2) Cr.P.C. but the

Accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

6)According to the dates fixed by me for the examination of prosecution witnesses as per Sec.230 Cr.P.C, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got

Exs. P.1 to P.5 marked on its behalf according to Section 231 Cr.P.C.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 63 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 3

7) After closure of evidence of prosecution, I examined the Accused Under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. by well explaining the incriminating evidence to Accused in

Telugu Language. The Accused denied the evidence of prosecution as being true.

8)On hearing the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the state and

Learned defence Counsel, I posted the case for Section 232 Cr.P.C.

consideration and on consideration, I held that Accused has not been acquitted

Under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the above noted charged offences.

9)Having been called to enter upon their defence, the Accused submitted that he has no defence evidence to adduce on his behalf.

10)Later, I heard the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

State and also defence counsel.

11) Now, the points for consideration are

1) Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offence Under Section 136(1)(a) Electricity Act or alternatively 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what Result ?

12) Point No.1: The gravamen of the 1st charge leveled against the Accused is that prior to 25.06.2023, some unknown offenders broke open 25 KVA distribution transformers situated in the village fields of Viswanadhapuram of

Tripuranthakam Mandal and committed theft of copper winding wire weighing about 10kgs worth Rs.10,000/- and decamped with the booty and that Accused thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 136(1)(a) of

Electricity Act and that the 2 nd charge is during course of investigation, on 14.07.2023 at 02.00 pm., at Pond, left side of God Krishna temple, on the

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 63 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 4

Western side of Donakonda to Podili Road, Peddannapalem village, Donakonda

Mandal, the Sub Inspector of Police, Donakonda P.S., accompanied by his staff and mediators arrested the Accused, in the above crime, while the Accused was in possession of the above said stolen property, on enquiry the Accused confessed his guilt of committing theft of the case property, the police recovered the same under the cover of seizure panchanama before the punch witnesses/PW.5 and LW.7 and that Accused thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act.

13) For proving said charges, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

PWs 1 to 7. Out of them, PW.1-Ch.Suresh is the then A.E., of Tripuranthakam

Mandal who lodged Ex.P.1/report to police. PW.2-M.Jagan Mohan Reddy is the lineman, who informed about theft to their A.E. PW.3-K.Bala Kotaiah, PW.4-

Y.Salmon are the circumstantial witness. PW.5-Sk.Hussain Saheb, the then

VRO, is the punch witness. PW.6-S.Bhaskar Reddy, the then ASI of Police and

PW.7-M.Saida Babu, the then Sub Inspector of Police, are the investigating officers.

14) If the prosecution’s evidence is marshalled, it comes out that PW.1 is the then A.E, of Tripuranthakam Mandal and that on 27.06.2023 at morning hours while he was present at his office, their Lineman/PW.2 along with PWs.3 & 4,

LW.3-Katikala Chinna Venkaiah came and informed about theft of copper wire from the transformers situated in the fields of Viswanadhapuram village and then they all visited the scene of offence and observed the same, then A.E., lodged Ex.P.1-Report to Asst., SI of Police, Tripuranthakam P.S.,(PW.6) who registered the report of PW.1 as a case in Cr.No.98/2023 of Tripuranthakam P.S

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 63 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 5 and submitted Ex.P.3-FIR to the court and also prepared Ex.P.4-rough sketch of scene of offence and also got taken Ex.P.5/bunch of photographs.

15)To boot (paiga in telugu), the evidence of prosecution also reads that on 14.07.2023 at about 14.00 hours, SI of Police, Donakonda Police Station (PW.7) secured PW.5 and LW.7 and proceeded near Krishna Temple of Donakonda-

Podili road and he seized the case property 8kgs of Copper Wire involved in this case along with the case property of other cases from the accused under the cover of Ex.P.2/Seizure Panchanama in the presence of punch witnesses and arrested the accused and took him to police station.

16)If the above noted evidence of prosecution is appreciated carefully,

Ex.P.2/Panchanama contains the crime numbers and sections of law with exact particulars as if the accused himself stated said particulars. It is improbable to believe that the accused could state said particulars at once without reference to any paper. Ex.P.2/Panchanama does not contain the actual statement of the accused but the contents of Ex.P.2/Panchanama are found written as if the accused narrated them. It is against the law. The investigating officer is supposed to have got the actual words of the accused mentioned in the Ex.P.2/

Panchanama. To put it differently, the actual words of the accused should have been recorded in the 1st person. Admittedly, the mediators for Ex.P.2/

Panchanama are not the natives of the alleged spot of seizure. Thus, the mandatory requirements of section 100 Cr.P.C. have not been complied by the prosecution in the case. Of course, respectability is the mandatory and locality is directory as can be seen from the language employed in section 100 of

Cr.P.C. But, the investigating officer is obliged to secure the presence of local inhabitants whenever there is possibility and if there is no such possibility, he

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 63 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 6 can proceed with the mediators picking them from elsewhere but no such plausible explanation is forthcoming in this case.

17) The offence took place prior to 25.06.2023, but the alleged recovery was made on 14.07.2023. It is the case of the prosecution that the case property was nabbed as above noted. It seems that the accused has been waiting for the police by keeping said case property with him and wandering all through right from the date of offence as if the police would come and arrest him and thereby to facilitate the police and cooperate the investigating officer. I do not find substance in the said contention. No person much less the accused would keep the stolen property with him for such a long time and wander on the roads. Moreover, the insouciance of the investigating officer without securing local punch witnesses and picking the punch witnesses elsewhere and not at the place where the accused was nabbed is another strong circumstance to doubt the investigation and to doubt the alleged recovery of case property from the possession of accused. No prudent person much less the accused would wander on the roads by keeping the stolen property with him. It cannot be lost sight of it that it was alleged that the accused habitually deal or receive stolen property and in such a case with all the experience he had, he would not keep the stolen property with him for such long time and he would had liquidated the stolen property long back after he stole them. This is another weighing circumstance improbabilising the story of prosecution that the accused was nabbed when he was in possession of the stolen property. It is also a million dollar’s question that how could the investigating officer identify the offence property in the absence of any descriptive particulars in the FIR.

Ex.P.2/Panchanama are in the nature of confessional statement of the Accused which is hit by sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.2/Panchanama

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 63 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 7 does not recite that the offence property was distinctly discovered by investigating officer in consequence of information furnished by the accused.

Thus, the evidence of PW.6 does not satisfy the legal requirement of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as to the alleged recovery of property from the possession of accused. I, therefore, hold that it is not sagacious to rely upon the evidence of the punch witness (PW.5) and the investigating officer(PW.7).

18)Admittedly, there is no direct evidence against the accused in the case regarding the charge of Section 136(1)(a) of Electricity Act. But the prosecution relied upon the above noted evidence regarding the charge of

Section 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act. But, the evidence of prosecution is not to the effect of attributing the knowledge or reasonable belief to accused regarding the alleged case property said to have been seized from him as stolen property. Thus, the necessary ingredients of the offence of Section 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act namely knowledge or reasonable belief of accused regarding the property allegedly found in possession of the accused to be stolen property are lacking. As is known to all, there is a presumption illustration (a) of section 114 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872 to the effect “that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”. But as already discussed above, the alleged recovery from the accused is not soon after the theft. So, said presumption is not available to the prosecution in this case.

19)In view of the discussion supra, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the charged offence under Sections 136(1)(a) or 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 63 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 8

20) Point No.2 : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act and consequently, the Accused is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property shall be given to PW.1 or any responsible person of APSPDCL, Tripuranthakam Mandal after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 16th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Special Judge under Electricity Act-cum-

I Addl. Dist. &Sessions Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

PW-1 : Ch.Suresh, the then A.E -NIL- PW-2 : M.Jagan Mohan Reddy, the then Lineman PW-3 : K.Bala Kotaiah PW-4 : Y.Salmon PW-5 : Sk.Hussain Saheb, the then V.R.O., PW-6 : S.Bhaskar Reddy, the then ASI of Police PW-7 : M.Saidu Babu, the then SI of Police

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:- Defence:-

Ex. P1 : Report of PW.1 given to Police Nil Ex. P2 : Seizure Panchanama, dated 14.07.2023 Ex. P3 : First Information Report in Cr.No.98/2023 Ex. P4 : Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex. P5 : Bunch of photos along with CD

Material Objects marked

- NIL -

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Spl. Judge-cum- I-ADJ/Ongole.

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 63 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT DESIGNATED FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003-cum- I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE

Present: Sri Rayasam Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences under the

Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 16th (Sixteenth) day of April, 2024 [ELECTRICITY] SESSIONS CASE No.63 of 2023

=====================

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Tripuranthakam P.S.,

…..Complainant

And:

Simhadri Ravi, S/o Nagaraju, aged 42 years, Viswabrahmin by Caste, Garataiah Colony, Addanki Town. …. Accused

Sections of Law…… Charge No.1 : 136(1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003, Alternative Charge : 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003,

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Date of Offences: Prior to 25.06.2023

Date of Report of Compliant: 01.07.2023

Date of Apprehension of Accused: 14.08.2023

Date of Release on Bail: 01.11.2023

Date of commitment: --

Date of Commencement of Trial: 22.01.2024

Date of Closure of Trial: 20.02.2024

Date of Sentence or Order: 16.04.2024

I-ADJ Court, OGL [Electricity] S.C.No. 63 of 2023, Dt.16.04.2024 10

Result of the Case : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act and consequently, the Accused is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences under Sections 136(1)(a) and 136(1)(b) of Electricity Act. The bail bonds of the Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property shall be given to PW.1 or any responsible person of APSPDCL, Tripuranthakam Mandal after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay in Trial Court : This case is taken on file under Section 379 of IPC, Section.136 (1) (a) of Electricity Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act. Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On 03.01.2024, accused was charged under sections 136 (1)( a) or alternatively 136 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003, on hearing both sides, and the contents of the charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In this case, trial was commenced on 22.01.2024 and closed by 20.02.2024 and during the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 and relied on Exs.P.1 to P.5 and posted for 313 Cr.P.C Examination. On 06.03.2024, accused has been examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, in the light of incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses after completion of prosecution evidence. No defence witnesses are examined nor any documents are marked for the accused and heard arguments on 18.03.2024 and posted for Judgment. On 16.04.2024 judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-.R.Siva Kumar,

Special Judge for trial of offences

under the Electricity Act, 2003-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,) Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District-522237.

Copies to :

1.The Director of Prosecutions, Vijayawada.

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole

3. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, Electricity Act-cum-I-ADJ Court, Ongole.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.