K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Special Judge and Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bidar in Spl. C.C. No. (Electricity) 27 of 2010, wherein the Trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138(1)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 1,95,720/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and the accused was given set of under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the learned High Court Government Pleader.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the Trial Court has erroneously convicted the accused for the above said offences even in the absence of sufficient evidence on record. The Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and not given the benefit of reasonable doubts arising out of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The Court has also erroneously drawn presumption under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, though the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused on facts under Section 135 of the Act, in order to draw such presumption. Further he contended that the sentence passed by the Trial Court is exorbitant, therefore, the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside.

3. Per contra, The learned High Court Government Pleader strenuously contended that once it is shown to the Court that the appellant is the consumer of the electricity under the respondent-Electricity Board and that there was tampering of meter and seal which was appended to the meter and that itself is sufficient to draw a presumption under Section 135 of the Act in order to hold that the meter was tampered only for the purpose of abstracting electrical energy. No person can get rid off the liability by taking undue advantage of his own wrong. It is also contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and justified in recording the judgment of conviction and sentencing the accused in accordance with law. Therefore, he submits that there is no room for interference with the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court. On the basis of the above said rival contentions of the parties, then points that arise for consideration by this Court are:

(i) Whether the Trial Court has committed any error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record?

(ii) Whether the Trial Court has committed any error in convicting and sentencing the accused as noted above?

(iii) What order?

4. My answer to the above said point is in the affirmative for the following reasons:

5. Before adverting to the grounds urged by the respective parties, it is just and necessary to bear in mind, the brief factual matrix of the case, which are as under:

6. One Sripathi Rao-C.W. 1 (P.W. 4) working as an Assistant Executive Engineer, Bidar, on 10-3-2010 at about 4.15 p.m. raided the flour mill of the appellant situated near Naya Kaman, Bidar and he found that the main cover of the meter was tampered and the appellant has interfered with the installation of the meter by tapping the energy illegally and thereby extracted the electricity and committed theft of electric energy from the installation RR No. 555.P and dishonesty committed theft of electric energy and caused loss to the KPTCL to the extent of 65,240/- (Back billing charges). Making such allegations, it is stated that he conducted raid in presence of the panch witnesses and he examined the tampered meter and ultimately he handed over the investigation to the jurisdictional BESCOM Police and after due investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. The accused in fact was enlarged on