Dr. T. Srinivasa Rao

1 Spl. CC.No.11/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

ELECTRICITY ACT-CUM-I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present : Dr. T. Srinivasa Rao, Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Electricity Act- cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Monday, this the 25th day of April, 2022

SPL.CC.No.11/2018

Name of the Complainant: State of Telangana through CI of police, Srirampur. Name of the Accused: Gaddam Ramulu S/o Lingaiah, aged 46 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Cultivation, R/o H.No.4-68, Gaddampalli village, H/o Sundilla village, Ramagiri mandal, Peddapalli District. Offence under section: Secs.304-II of IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act. Plea of the accused: Not Guilty Finding: Not Guilty Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Secs.304-II of IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Unmarked property i.e., vide CP No.53 of 2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Name of the counsel for: Sri.M.Madhukar, Special Public Prosecutor prosecution Name of the counsel for: Sri N.Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for Defenceaccused

This case coming on 25.4.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Madhukar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N.Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Circle Inspector of Police, Srirampur has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs.304-II of IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act in Cr.No.167 of 2018 of

PS Jaipur.

2 Spl. CC.No.11/2018

2. The Alpha and Omega of the facts of the prosecution case is that the accused erected illegal connection from service wire and connected to GA, binding wire with small wire around his fields to protect their crops from the wild animals. On 17.10.2018 at about 0715 hours the deceased went to his fields and came into contact with the said live wires and died on the spot due to electrocution.

Thus the accused has committed the offences under Secs.304-II of

IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act.

Basing on the report, police registered a case and investigated into the matter and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.

3.This court took cognizance of the offences under Secs.304-II of IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act against accused.

On presence of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges offences under Secs.304-II of IPC and Section 135 of

Indian Electricity Act are framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses, as all the witnesses turned hostile.

6.Since there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused, examination of accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard the arguments of both the sides.

3 Spl. CC.No.11/2018

8. Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the charges offences under Secs.304-II of IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act against accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9. In this case the prosecution examined six witnesses. PW1 is the son of the deceased, PW2 is the wife son of the deceased, Pw3 is the daughter of the deceased and PW4 is the eye witness to the incident.

10. PW1, who is the complainant and son of the deceased, deposed that he does not know the accused. He deposed that he does not know anything about this case and that police never examined him nor recorded his statement. He deposed that his father died due to electrocution, but he does not know who is responsible for the death of his father. PW1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any manner. During cross examination by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, PW1 denied to have stated to the police

as in Ex.P2.

10. PW2 is the wife of the deceased. PW3 is the daughter of the deceased. Both of them deposed in the same lines as that of PW1.

They deposed that they do not know the accused and that police never examined them nor recorded their statement. They deposed that they do not know who is responsible for the death of the deceased and that they do not know anything about this case.

PWs.2 and 3 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any manner. During cross examination by the learned Additional 4 Spl. CC.No.11/2018

Public Prosecutor, PWs.2 and 3 denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.P3 and P4 respectively.

11.PW4 is the eye witness to the incident. He deposed that he does not know the accused and that he does not anything about this case. PW4 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any manner. During cross examination by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, PW4 denied to have stated to the police as in

Ex.P4.

12. In view of the above discussion and as PWs.1 to 4 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under Secs.304-II of IPC and

Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under offences under Secs.304-II of IPC and

Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Unmarked property vide CP No.53 of 2018 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation and after correction pronounced by me in open court this the 25 th day of April, 2022.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

5 Spl. CC.No.11/2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PW1Bandari Sagar/Son of deceased For Defence PW2Bandari Shyamala/wife of deceased None -- PW3BandariSangeetha/daughterof deceased PW4J.Bikshapathi/eye witness

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on report-Nil- Ex.P2Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW1 Ex.P3Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW2 Ex.P4Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW3 Ex.P5Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW4

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

1 Spl. CC.No.45/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

ELECTRICITY ACT-CUM-I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present : Dr. T. Srinivasa Rao, Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Electricity Act- cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Thursday, this the 28th day of April, 2022

SPL.CC.No.45/2019

Name of the Complainant: State of Telangana through SI of police, PS Mavala. Name of the Accused: Rokadi Ganganna S/o Santenna, aged 40 years, Caste: Tenugu, Occ: Coolie, R/o Mavala village (A1). Offence under section: Secs.337 of IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act. Plea of the accused: Not Guilty Finding: Not Guilty Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Secs.337 of IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Name of the counsel for: Sri.M.Madhukar,AdditionalPublic prosecutionProsecutor Name of the counsel for: Sri A.Santosh, Advocate Defence

This case coming on 28.4.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Madhukar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A.Santosh, Advocate for accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

2 Spl. CC.No.45/2019

The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Mavala has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs.337 of IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act in Cr.No.14 of 2019 and submitted that soon after arrest of A2, a separate charge sheet will be filed against him.

2. The Alpha and Omega of the facts of the prosecution case is that on 12.1.2019 at 2000 hours PW2 went to Mavala village pond to watch the fishes in the pond and came into contact with the GA wire near Mavala village pond erected by accused to hunt animals illegally and sustained injuries and thereafter PW2 was referred to the hospital for treatment. Thus the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences under Secs.337 IPC and Section 135 of

Indian Electricity Act.

3. Basing on the report, police registered a case and investigated into the matter and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the above said offences.

4.This court took cognizance of the offences under Secs.304-II and 201 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act against accused No.1. On presence of accused No.1, copies of 3 Spl. CC.No.45/2019 documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges offences under Secs.337 of IPC and Section 135 of

Indian Electricity Act are framed against the accused No.1, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6To prove its case prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. On behalf of accused, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses and reported prosecution evidence is closed.

7.Since there is no incriminating material and circumstances appearing against the accused, examination of the accused under section 313 CrPC is dispensed with.

8. Heard both the sides.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the charges offences under Secs.337 IPC and Section 135 of Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

4 Spl. CC.No.45/2019

10.PW1 complainant deposed that he does not know anything about this case and that police never examined him nor recorded his statement. He deposed that police obtained his signatures on white papers and that he never went to water tank of Mavala village. PW1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. During his cross examination, he denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.P2.

11.PW2 is the injured and crucial witness in this case. He deposed that he does not know anything about this case and that

PW1 never lodged any complaint against the accused. He deposed that police never examined him nor recorded his statement. He deposed that police never referred him to the hospital for treatment and he did not sustain injuries due to electrocution.

PW2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

During his cross examination, he denied to have stated to the police as in Ex.P3.

12. PWs.1 and 2, who are the material witnesses in this case turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Further nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PWs. 1 and 2. As such the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up remaining witnesses, since the prime witnesses PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. Thus 5 Spl. CC.No.45/2019 there is no evidence available on record to connect the accused with this crime.

13. In view of the above discussion and as PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offences under Secs.337 IPC and

Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

14.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty of the offences punishable under offences under Secs.337 of IPC and

Section 135 of Electricity Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as mandated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation and after correction pronounced by me in open court this the 28 th day of April, 2022.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW1Sandala Gangadhar/Complainant None -- PW2P.Anil/Injured

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

6 Spl. CC.No.45/2019

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on complaint -Nil- Ex.P2Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW1 Ex.P3Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT ADILABAD

Friday, the 23rd day of August, 2019

PRESENT: SRI. DR. T. SRINIVASA RAO, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad

FAC: Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad

Guardian O.P. No.364/2016

Between:

Baddula Poshetty, S/o. Linganna, Age: 36 years, Occ: Fishing business, R/o. H.No.1-1-300/1, Edgoan road, Nirmal, District Adilabad … Petitioner AND To whom so ever it may concern … Respondent

This petition coming up for final hearing before me on 09.08.2019 in the presence of Sri C. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for thepetitioner, respondent - Nil- and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

This petition has been filed under sections 10 and 25 of Guardian and

Wards Act, 1890for appointment of the petitioner as guardian of his minor daughter and also to permit the petitioner to sell the petition schedule property of minor for the educational expenses, maintenance and welfare of the minor in the capacity of Guardian.

2. The brief averments in the petition, are as follows:-

The petitioner is the father of the minor Boddula Moksha who is aged about 8 years. The petition schedule property i.e., plot No.9 in Sy.No.1532 to an extent of 60’ x 40’ = 2400 sq.yards had been purchased in the name of the minor Boddula

Moksha from one Syed Mahboob under a Registered Sale Deed No.1478/2015

dated 02.03.2015. Since then the minor has been in possession and enjoyment of

the Petition Schedule property.

Page 2

While so, the petitioner is the natural father of minor and looks after his minor daughter property. The minor is under care and custody of the petitioner and the petitioner has been providing good and better education and also day to day maintenance to the minor. In the above stated circumstances, amount is necessary for the education expenses, maintenance of the minor. So, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition seeking permission to sell the property of minor for his educational expenses and for other reliefs. Hence, the petition.

3. No objections were received to the general notice issued by way of publication in Eenadu Daily Newspaper.

4. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner examined himself as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

5. The point that arises for consideration in this matter is :

Whether the petitioner can be permitted to sell the petition schedule property for the welfare and maintenance of the minor ward?

POINT:

6. The petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and reiterated the averments of the petition in his chief examination affidavit. To prove his contention, he got examined one Md. Maqdoom Mohiuddin as PW2. PW2 deposed that the petitioner purchased the plot No.9 in Sy.No.1532 to an extent of 60’ x 40’ = 2400 sq.yards situated at Nirmal town from one Syed Mahmood in the name of his minor daughter under a registered sale deed bearing No.1478/2015 dated 02.03.2015 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,67,000/- and he acted as one of the witness and signed on sale deed. He further deposed that since new District Nirmal, there is

Page 3 hike in the prices of plots and presently the above said plot market value is

Rs.5,00,000/- and the petitioner being the natural father of his minor daughter, he is working for her benefit and welfare and has no adverse interest. In support of the evidence of P.W.1, he also got marked Ex.P1 attested copy of Aadhar card of him, Ex.P2 attested copy of Aadhar card of Baddula Moksha, Ex.P3 attested copy of sale deed document No.1478/2015, Ex.P4 market value certificate of plot No.9, in Sy.No.1532, Nirmal and Ex.P5 statement of encumbrance on property plot No.9 in Sy.No.1532, Nirmal.

7. In spite of paper publication, the respondent did not contest the matter and no objections were received to the general notice issued by way of publication in

Eenadu Daily Newspaper. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 remained un- challenged. Since the petition is not opposed by anyone and the petitioner is no other than the father and natural guardian of the minor. The burden of care and guidance of minor is on his shoulders and some amount is necessary for education expenses and welfare of the minor petitioner. In view of the un-challenged testimony of PW1 and PW2 and on perusal of Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, this court is satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the petition. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petition can be allowed, however, with terms and conditions. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed, however, with terms and conditions, they are as follows:- (1) the petitioner shall endeavour to secure the highest price for the petition schedule property while selling the same; (2) the petitioner shall deposit the entire sale proceeds in any

Nationalized Bank in the name of minor and the petitioner as guardian;

Page 4 (3) the petitioner shall file sworn affidavit before this Court declaring the amount of sale consideration received by sale of petition schedule property; (4) the original FDR in the name of the petitioner/minor shall be deposited in this court within three days of execution of registered sale deed; (5) the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the interest on the FD amount for the purpose of meeting educational expenses of minor only; (6) the petitioner shall maintain proper accounts for the amounts received by selling the petition schedule property and the said accounts shall be rendered to this Court once in every three months;

In default of any of the above conditions, the permission granted shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2019.

FAC: Judge, Family Court Adilabad

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For petitioner:- For respondent

PW1: Baddula Poshetty -NIL- PW2: Md. Maqdoom Mohiuddin

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For petitioner:

Ex.P1 Attested copy of Aadhar card of petitioner, Ex.P2 Attested copy of Aadhar card of Boddula Moksha, Ex.P3 Attested copy of sale deed document No.1478/2015, Ex.P4 Market value certificate of plot No.9, in Sy.No.1532, Nirmal Ex.P5 Statement of encumbrance on property plot No.9 in Sy.No.1532, Nirmal.

For Respondent: - NIL -

FAC: Judge, Family Court Adilabad

1 Spl.C.C.No.39/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT -CUM-I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present : Dr.T.Srinivasa Rao, Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Electricity Act, - cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Thursday, the 21st day of April, 2021

Spl. C.C.No.39/2021

Name of the Complainant: State of Telangana through SI of police, PS Bazarhathnoor. Name of the Accused:A2: Gopal S/o Seetharam Wayale, aged 25 years, Occ: POP worker, R/o Ashoknagar, Mangroolpeer, District Washim (MS)

A4: Naurangabade @ Navarbande Yousuf S/o Jangli, aged 32 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Business, R/o near Arninaka, Digras village and Tq of Maharashtra State. Offence under section:U/sec.379 IPC r/w 136 of Electricity Act against A2 and Sections 411 r/w 136 of Electricity Act against A4. Plea of the accused:Guilty. Finding:Guilty. Sentence or Order:In the result, accused is found guilty of the offence punishable U/sec.379 IPC r/w 136 of Electricity Act against A2 and Sections and accordingly they are convicted of the said offence under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 and 4 are sentenced undergo the period already undergone by them. Accused No.2 is in jail. The Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad id directed to release him forthwith if he is not required in another case. Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Name of the counsel for:Sri.M.Madhukar, Addl. Public Prosecutor prosecution Name of the counsel for:Sri Rahul Waghmare, Advocate for A2 (SB) Defenceand Sri Shaik Mansheer, Advocate for A4 2 Spl.C.C.No.39/2021

This case coming on 21.4.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Madhukar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Rahul Waghmare, Advocate for A2 (SB) and Sri Shaik Mansheer, Advocate and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Bazarhathnoor filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable

U/secs.379 IPC against A1 to A3 and Section 411 of IPC against A4 in Cr.No.30/2017.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused No.1 to 3 on the night of 22.6.2017 at the out skirts of Buithai village of

Bazarhathnoor manda, broke opened the electric transformer and committed theft of copper wire from the said transformer, which is worth Rs.5000/- and sold the same to A4. Thus the accused No.1 to 3 are committed the offence under section 379 IPC and A4 committed the offence under section 411 of IPC.

Basing on the report of LW1, police registered a case and investigated into the matter.

The case against A1 and A3 is split up from this case.

3.This court took cognizance of the offences U/sec. 379 IPC and

Section 136 of Electricity Act against accused No.2 and Section 411

IPC and Section 136 of Indian Electricity Act against A4. On their 3 Spl.C.C.No.39/2021 presence, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record,

Charges U/sec. 379 IPC r/w Section 136 of Electricity Act against accused No.2 and Section 411 IPC r/w Section 136 of Indian

Electricity Act against A4 were framed, explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded guilty of the said offences.

5.At this stage, today i.e., on 21.4.2022 the accused No.2 is produced from jail and 4 came to the court and admitted their guilt voluntarily.

6.Hence, on admission pleaded by the accused No.2 and 4, this court found the guilt of the accused No.2 for the offence U/sec.

379 IPC r/w Section 136 of Electricity Act and found guilty of A4 for the offence under Section 411 IPC r/w Section 136 of Indian

Electricity Act, at this stage, because their admission is voluntary.

In this case the accused No.2 is in jail since 10 months 20 days and the accused No.4 was in jail for 6 months and 20 days.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the period of remand already undergone by the accused No.2 and 4 meets the ends of justice.

4 Spl.C.C.No.39/2021

7.In the result, accused No.2 is found guilty of the offences punishable under section 379 IPC r/w Section 136 of Electricity Act and the accused No.4 is found guilty of the offence under section 411 IPC r/w Sec.136 of Electricity act accordingly they are convicted of the said offences under section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation and after correction pronounced by me in open court this the 21 st day of April, 2022.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

8.Heard both sides. Accused No.2 and 4 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed against them and they submitted that they will never commit similar offences in future and prayed to take lenient view. Considering the plea of the accused No.2 and 4, both the accused are sentenced to undergo the period already undergone by them. A2 is in jail. The

Superintendent, District Jail, Adilabad id directed to release A2 forthwith, if he is not required in another case.

Accused No.2 and 4 are informed of their right to appeal

before Hon’ble High Court and they are also further informed about

their right to get free Legal Aid, in case, they prefers appeal. The accused submitted that they have means to engage counsel to 5 Spl.C.C.No.39/2021 prefer appeal. The free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused.

Typed to my dictation and after correction, pronounced by me in open court this the 21 st day of April, 2022.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence  None -  None --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

 Nil -- -- Nil –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil –

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

1 Spl.C.C.No.01/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT -CUM-I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS

JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present : Dr.T.Srinivasa Rao, Spl.Judge for trial of cases under Electricity Act, - cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Tuesday, the 26th day of April, 2021

Spl. C.C.No.01/2017

Name of the Complainant: State of Telangana through V&APTS, PS Adilabad. Name of the Accused: Enaganti Srinivas Reddy S/o Kistaiah, aged 42 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Agrl., R/o Manganapalli village of Vemanapally mandal. Offence under section:U/sec.135(a)(i) of Electricity Act. Plea of the accused:Guilty. Finding:Guilty. Sentence or Order:In the result, accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 135(a)(i) of Electricity Act and accordingly he is convicted of the said offence under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. Accused is sentenced to pay penalty of Rs.10,890/- i.e., (Rs.3630X3 times penalty) for the above said offence and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Name of the counsel for:Sri.M.Madhukar, Addl. Public Prosecutor prosecution Name of the counsel for:Sri.Y.Vishnu Bhagwan, Advocate Defence

This case coming on 26.4.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Madhukar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Y.Vishnu Bhagwan, Advocate for the accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

2 Spl.C.C.No.01/2017

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, V&APTS., PS Adilabad filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/sec.135 of

Electricity Act in Cr.No.7270/2016.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused earlier committed theft of energy, for which police registered a case in

Cr.No.4701/2016 and not paid compounding amount, but he paid the said compounding amount of Rs.3000/- vide challan

No.6200327935, dated 26.4.2022 and now for the second time on 12.9.2016 at 1630 hours he illegally utilized the power supply by direct tapping with black colour pvc insulated alluminium wire and caused loss of Rs.3630/- to TSNPDCL, Adilabad and that you thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 135 (a)(i) of

Electricity Act 2003.

Basing on the report of LW1, police registered a case and investigated into the matter.

3.This court took cognizance of the offences U/sec. 135(a)(i) of

Electricity Act against accused. On his presence, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges U/sec.135 (a)(i) of Electricity Act is framed against accused 3 Spl.C.C.No.01/2017 and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty of the said offence.

5.At this stage, today i.e., on 26.4.2022 the accused came to the court and admitted his guilt voluntarily.

6.Hence, on admission pleaded by the accused, this court found the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 135(a)

(i) of Indian Electricity Act at this stage, because his admission is voluntary.

7.In the result, accused is found guilty of the offences punishable under section 135(a)(i) of Electricity Act and accordingly he is convicted of the said offences under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation and after correction pronounced by me in open court this the 26 th day of April, 2022.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.

8.Heard both sides. Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed against him and he submitted that he will never commit similar offences in future and prayed to take lenient view. The accused committed two similar offences.

4 Spl.C.C.No.01/2017

Considering the plea of the accused and as this is the first conviction of the accused, accused is sentenced to pay penalty of

Rs.10,890/- i.e., (Rs.3630X3 times penalty) for the offence punishable under section 135(a)(i) of Electricity Act and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Accused is informed of his right to appeal before Hon’ble

High Court and he is also further informed about his right to get free Legal Aid, in case, he prefers appeal. The accused submitted that he has means to engage counsel to prefer appeal. The free copy of judgment is furnished to the accused.

Typed to my dictation and after correction, pronounced by me in open court this the 26 th day of April, 2022.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

ADILABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence  None -  None --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

 Nil -- -- Nil –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil – 5 Spl.C.C.No.01/2017

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADILABAD.