H KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. JAGARNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Chief Engineer of the Patna Electric Supply Company Ltd. is directed against a judgment of acquittal by the second Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in a case relating to the theft of electrical energy and other offences under the Indian Electricity Act and the rules framed under that Act, The respondent was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dinapore, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for sis months. He was convicted under Section 44 as well of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- and, in default three months simple imprisonment, There was a further conviction under Rule 188 Clause (b) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and, in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The respondent was acquitted in respect of the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal by the respondent, the second Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him in respect of all the charges which were held by the trial Court to have been established. Hence the Chief Engineer has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The Patna Electric Supply Company Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the PESCO) supplied electrical energy to a large number of consumers in Patna, Dinapore and other places. The respondent was the proprietor of Messrs. Ramnaresh Singh Surendra Singh. Gola Road, Dinapore Cantonment, and he was an industrial power consumer (hereinafter to be referred to as the consumer) of the PESCO. He was supplied energy at medium pressure under Account No. 9290(7/73/2) and his mill was situated on the Gola Road, Dinapore Cantonment. The Chief Engineer noticed that for sometime past the gap between the number of units generated and the number of units sold had increased considerably over the normal difference usually known as units unaccounted for and this led to a suspicion that theft of energy was being committed on a large scale. He deputed some of his officers to make careful inspection of the meters and seals of various consumers, particularly those supplied in the Mills. After inspection, it was reported to him that consumers had tampered with the seals of the meters in order to have an access to the mechanism of the meter and to prevent it from recording actual consumption of energy and evade payment for the entire energy consumed The respondent had a 20 Horse Power mill consisting of two motors, each of 10 Horse Power capacity with 12 oil Ghannies which should normally consume about 150 units of energy per day, even if the mill would be worked only for one shift of 8 hours, but the average advancement of the meter indicated only 1788 units per month on an average. On 18-6-1958 Sri S. Chatterjee, an Assistant Engineer (Mains) of the PESCO inspected the installation of the consumer and found the seal broken and the sealing studs and the nuts provided on them tampered with. On the following day the Chief Engineer personally inspected the installation of the consumer and noticed the seals on the meter cover broken and the sealing studs and nuts tampered with. On 20-6-1958 Sri K. Prasad, Assistant Electrical Inspector, inspected the seal and the meter along with the Assistant Engineer and he also found the seal broken and the meter tampered with. There was thus in existence an artificial means tor abstraction of energy and that was a prima facie evidence of a dishonest abstraction according to Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act (Act 9 of 1910). The respondent had tampered the meter and that also was an offence under Section 44(c) of the said Act. The breaking of the seal as well was penal under Rule 138 of the Indian Electricity Rules. 1956. The PESCO had suffered considerable loss on account of the dishonest action of the respondent and hence it became necessary to bring this matter to the notice of the authorities. The petition of complaint containing these facts was filed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dinapore, on 12-7-1958 and the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on the same date. The Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the respondent (accused).

(3.) The respondent was put on trial and he was charged for the offences under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and Rule 138 of the Indian Electricity Rules. Apart from this, he was charged under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the evidence of the commission of the said offences to disappear with the intention of saving himself from legal punishment.