JUDGMENT :

SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. The accused in EA C.C. No. 59/2010 prosecuted for the offence of Section 135 of the Electricity Act in the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar, has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction for the said offence. The Court has sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 57,135/- being back billing charges and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in case of failure to pay the fine amount.

2. The prosecution case is that on 24.08.2009 PW-1 Mallaiah who was working as Section Officer in O&M Section of Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BESCOM’ for short), Mulbagal received information from the Vigilance Police attached to BESCOM about illegal tapping of electric power at Shivanarahalli village, Mulbagal Taluk. Immediately he went to that village along with BESCOM vigilance police and a lineman, he found two poultry sheds one on the northern side and the other on the southern side. To the shed situated on the southern side, the accused had taken power supply authorisedly. But to the northern side shed, he had tapped power supply from the up-pole fixed to the shed situated on the southern side. The power supply to the northern side shed was illegal and therefore in the presence of two independent witnesses of the village and one Ravikumar, the brother of the accused he seized certain length of wire used for drawing power supply to the northern side shed and then drew up a mahazar, he made a report to PW-6 who registered an FIR. Thus the accused came to be chargesheeted, tried and convicted.

3. The prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses and produced 17 documents, Exs.P1 to P17, and 2 material objects MO.1 and 2. From the accused side one document Ex.D.1 was marked. The trial Court’s conclusion is that accused had drawn power supply illegally from the southern side shed to the northern side shed. It has recorded reasons that the defence version that two poultry sheds cannot be constructed in a land measuring 12.05 guntas cannot be believed, that very existence of a poultry shed towards northern side is enough to prove the guilt of the accused. The evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2 is believable for they have clearly stated that when they visited Shivanarahalli village, they found that there was tapping of electricity by the accused and the said information was given to them by the brother of the accused himself. Referring to the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5, the independent mahazar witnesses, it is observed by the trial Court that they are the residents of same village and if they have turned hostile, there is nothing strange in it. According to the trial Judge, assessment of evidence as a whole indicates that there was illegal tapping and thus the accused has committed an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. He has levied fine in the light of the evidence given by PW-3 C.M. Vasudeva.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there are two poultry sheds, one on the southern side and the other on the northern side. The southern side shed belongs to the accused and the northern side shed does not belong to him. In between the two sheds, there is a road and a distance of 50 feet. The land in which the northern side shed is situated does not belong to the accused. The measurement of each shed is 220 x 26 feet. It has come in evidence that attached to the southern side shed, there is another room measuring 26 x 15 feet for the purpose of storing the feeds and other materials. If the measurements of two sheds as depicted in Ex.D1 are considered, it is not possible that in a land measuring only 12.05 guntas, two such big sheds can be constructed. Therefore, it was his argument that only the southern side shed belongs to the accused and the northern side shed does not belong to him and if illegal power supply was there to northern side shed, the accused cannot be held guilty. It is further argument of the appellant’s counsel