( 1 ) THE petitioner established an industry by name,m/s Srinivasa Metal industries at Thadithota,rajahmundry. The industry is supplied power through two separate connections. The factory premises were inspected on 12. 6. 2001 by the officials of the A. P. Eastern Power Distribution company Limited and its Vigilance Cell. While one meter was found to be intact, in the other meter, bearing No. 7513185, one, out of the 4 seals, was said to have been tampered. An inspection report was prepared; the petitioner was arrested, and the meter was sent for analysis to the MRT lab,bommur. The meter and the seals were tested on 13. 6. 2001 and a report was submitted. On the basis of the same, the superintending Engineer, Assessments, visakhapatnam,issued proceedings dated 1. 10. 2001, holding that the petitioner has pilfered energy, valued at Rs. 6,63,781/ -.

( 2 ) SIMULTANEOUSLY proceedings were initiated before the Special Court under the indian Electricity (A. P. Amendment) Act, 2000. The case was tried as E. S. C. No. 6 of 2002. Through its judgment dated 30. 1. 2003, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 49 of the Indian Electricity Act and imposed the sentence of two years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also held guilty of the offence under Section 44 of the Act and punishment of rigorous imprisonment for two years was imposed for that. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

( 3 ) ON civil aspect, the Special Court affirmed the amount levied by the superintending Engineer, Assessment Circle. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Court.

( 4 ) THE petitioner contends that the inspection itself was conducted contrary to the prescribed procedure and no independent witnesses were drawn, as required under Rule 238 of the A. P. ! electricity Department Manual. It is further alleged that a clear discrepancy as to the identity of the seals and meter was pointed out by the laboratory and the same was not at all taken into account by the tribunal.

( 5 ) THE respondents filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. According to them, it is not mandatory that an independent witness is arranged at the time of inspection and the mere fact that such a witness was not present, does not vitiate the proceedings. It is also stated that the discrepancy as to the numbers of meters and seals was adequately explained by the witness examined on its behalf.

( 6 ) SRI P. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the special Court ignored two vital aspects, namely the procedure to be followed at the time of causing inspection and the discrepancies that emerged in the course of test of the meters by the laboratory. He contends that, as in any other criminal cases, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the petitioner and the Special court has endeavoured to explain the vital discrepancies. Learned Counsel submits that the facts and figures arrived at by the superintending Engineer are also based on surmises and conjectures and the very basis for the allegation as to pilfering power ceases to exist and the levy of the amount also cannot be sustained.

( 7 ) SRI O. Manohar Reddy,learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that presence of independent witness during the course of inspection, though preferable, is not compulsory and mandatory and that adequate precautions were taken by the time of inspection right in the presence of the petitioner. He further submits that the facts and figures, particularly in relation to the production of the material and the consumption of power, clearly suggested that the petitioner resorted to pilferage of power. Learned Counsel further contends that the discrepancy in the numbers of seals and meters was on account of the clerical mistakes and the reco