Prosecution must prove criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to establish ownership or direct involvement negates the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated February 17, 2005 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2^nd Court Purulia in Electricity G.R. case No. 65 of 2004 under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, convicting the petitioner to suffer R.I. for 2 years and also liable to pay a fine in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d to suffer further R.I. for 2 months.

Fact of the case

2. A complaint was lodged to the Officer-in-Charge Neturia Police Station, District Purulia on January 20, 2003 by Assistant Engineer, Raghunathpur W.B.S.E.B, Purulia against the present appellant alleging that on that date at about 2 P.M. to 2.30 P.M the said complainant along with two other officials in co-operation with local Police Station held inspection of the house of the present appellant having consumer NO. A-500 278 which was disconnected on 26.11.2002 for outstanding dues of Rs. 2693 for the posted (SIC) 9/0027/02, and found act of consuming and using electric energy dishonestly from the L.T. lines of Neturia village by way of hooking and causing loss of the revenue to the tune of Rs. 4000. It was further alleged that the appellant also caused mischief to the board’s property as enunciated in Section 3 (2) (a) of Act III/84 (Prevention to the damage of Public Property). On the basis of such complaint the Neturuia P.S. case 4/03 dated January 20, 2003 under Section 31 I.E. Act along with Section 379 IPC started and on completion of the investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the present appellant. The Learned Special Court framed the charges under Section 39 I.E. Act and of Indian Penal Code on 3rd day of December, 2003.

Submissions

3. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant argued that the Learned Trial Court failed to consider that there are discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the witnesses and in absence of any satisfactory evidence on record to prove the reasonable doubt but despite that the Learned Trial Court passed such order of conviction. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution and it is evident from the evidence that no attempt was made to identify the house where the raid was conducted as to whether it belong to the appellant or not. It is further argued that the Learned Judge did not consider that the prosecution failed to prove that the hooking was at all was done by the appellant for his house and further P.W. 3 stated that the house belong to one Bankim Pandey. The seizure list was not prepared at the place of occurrence as alleged but at the Police Station which was also not considered by the Learned Trial Court. Lastly the Learned Judge did not follow any of the established principles relating to examination of the accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

4. The Learned prosecution on the other hand raises objection and submits that the prosecution adduced evidence; the raid was conducted on that date and found the illegal hooking is being done by the appellant and therefore the Learned Trial Court considering the evidences rightly passed the order of conviction. Accordingly prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

Analysis

5. The de-facto complainant deposed as P.W. 1 who was posed as Assistant Engineer, S.E.B. Raghunathpur (O and M) Sub-Division on January 20, 2003 when they held the raid in such village. After discovering that the appellant was consuming electricity energy illegally and dishonestly by di