(1) The State is the appellant herein. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 10/10/2008, passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in C.C.No.6 of 2004, whereby the respondents herein-Accused 1 to 7, were acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short "the Act").

(2) For the purpose of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they arrayed in the C.C.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that basing on information of high-energy losses on Sowbhagya feeder emanating from 33/11 KV IDA Bollaram SS, thorough inspection of all services on the feeder were programmed in the month of April, 2003. In that context, the meter data was logged into CMRI to study the performance, load pattern, and tamper data in the meter. On review and study of the data available in the meter of A.1 company, certain tampers indicating the missing of voltage in Y-phase at times were registered in the meter. The billing meter of A.1 company with Meter No.APEO 1853 recorded 100 tamper events indicating the Y-phase potential missing from 02-10-2002, and as the meter is not having the provision of recording any further tamper events, a check meter with a separate CIPT set outside the premises was installed, in addition to the series check meter to the billing meter, and the service was kept under observation. After installation of the above check meters, the consumption of the services of A.l company considerably increased by more than 1.4 lakh units for the month of May 2003 resulting in simultaneous reduction in feeder losses to around 11% from 25%.

(3) On 10/06/2003 P.W.I and others inspected the H.T. S.C.No.MDK-604 Cat-H-1 of A.l company and found that A.l company is pilfering energy, and thereby causing loss to APCPDCL. They assessed the loss sustained by the APCPDCL, on account of pilferage of energy, at Rs.4,91,63,552/-. Thereafter, P.W.I lodged a complaint with A.P.T.S. P.S., Sangareddy, against A.l company and A.2 to A.7, who are the directors of A.1 company. On receipt of the complaint, P.W.12, the then Inspector of Police, Vigilance APTS, Sangareddy, registered a case in Crime No.2086 of 2003 under Sections 39 and 44 of the I.E. Act, 1910 and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Act. The plea of the accused is one of total denial.

(4) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.23 and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

On a careful consideration of both oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and accordingly, acquitted them of the charges leveled against them, by judgment dated 10.10.2008. Challenging the said judgment, the State preferred this appeal.

(5) Heard both sides.

(6) It is mainly contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has let in cogent evidence and satisfied the ingredients, which constitute the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Act, but however, the court below rejected the said evidence on flimsy grounds. He further contended that P.W.I along with P.Ws. 2 to 7 inspected A.1 company, and found certain irregularities. But, the court below has extended the benefit of doubt to the accused by giving a different reasoning for the said irregularities.

Per contra, Mr. D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the respondents-accused, laid emphasis on two aspects. Firstly, the court below ought not to have tried the accused without there being committal, and as such, the trial is vitiated by Section 154 of the Act. The complainant i.e. the Ins