Coherent evidence linking an accused to electricity theft must be established within statutory timelines; failure to prove ownership and timely complaints results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The appellant is the accused convicted under section 135 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 and sentenced to 1 year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine is sentenced to further 3 months simple imprisonment by an order dated 31.01.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Special Criminal Case No.1 of 2004 (G.E.B.).

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and sentence, challenge has been given by filing the present criminal appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The complaint was filed by Jentilal Manjibhai Jivani, Deputy Engineer of Sub-Division, Gujarat Electricity Board (Rural) at Gondal. As per the complaint on 22.06.2004, he along with other officers at Kotda Sangani Taluka, Aadamtala GIDC, made a checking at a factory known as Harsiddhi Enterprise. At that time, they found a direct cable connection with the factory for the electricity supply from the pole of L.T. line of Gujarat Electricity Board. The electricity supply was illegal and therefore, it was found to be a case of theft of electricity. The checking was done in presence of the representative of the factory of Harshiddhi Enterprise. The Electricity checking report and the Rojnama was prepared. The accused was running the factory who had remained present later on and he had thereafter put his signature.

4. The complainant has stated that a G.E.B. connection as a customer was given to Harshiddhi Enterprise and on 15.01.2004, checking was done where the theft of electricity was found and since no payment of the bill was done, the connection was cut and the meter was removed from the place. Thereafter, on 22.06.2004 when they found that there was theft of electricity by the accused, a complaint was filed by G.E.B at the police station and on the basis of the complaint, the offence was registered and the investigating officer thereafter recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Shakeel Qureshi for the appellant referring to the depositions of both the witnesses i.e. the complainant PW-1 - Jentilal Manjibhai Jivani and the I.O. PW-2 Atmaram Panduram Pawar submitted that the ownership of the factory as that of Harsiddhi Enterprise and the accused being the owner or the partner or any other authorized person has not been proved. The checking was on 22.06.2004 while the complaint was filed on 17.09.2004 which is contrary to the provisions of Section 135 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi submitted that it is the case of tapping of the electricity illegally drawn against the accused, however, there is no recovery of the alleged cable wire through which the theft was alleged to have been done. Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi stated that the presence of the accused was not found when the Rojnama was drawn and the delay in the complaint itself suggest that later on the signature of the accused was procured. Mr. Qureshi further stated that the reliance of the document at Exh-20 in the form of Kabulatnama by the learned Judge itself is faulty since the document at Exh. 20 could not be termed as a Kabulatnama rather it was an assurance of payment of money which is required to be made if the electricity supply is to be restored. Mr. Qureshi furthe