Conviction for electricity theft requires proof of accused's ownership and control over the disputed service connection; mere tampering without clear evidence of occupation leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.

This appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District, in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2014, dated 13.08.2020.

2.The appellant, who is accused No.2 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Sections 135 (1)(b), (c) and 135(1) (d) of Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , by the impugned order dated 13.08.2020, for the alleged act of electricity theft committed in the premises of Kiruba Ice Plant at Kurunji Nagar, Veerapandiapattinam.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the officers in the Tamil Nadu electricity Board conducted the investigation on 02.01.2012 at 03.00 p.m, in the 'Kiruba Ice Plant' situated at Kurunji Nagar, Veerapandiapattinam. After causing notice to the accused on the ground that they are in occupation of premises. At that time, they found that there is tampering of the meter with an intention to commit the theft of electricity in the service connection No.A 129 available in the said Ice Plant. Thereby, caused loss of Rs.21,42,609/- to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Hence, they preferred the material document in the presence of the VAO/P.W.5 and also recovered the incriminative material and lodged a complaint before the respondent police about the theft of electricity by tampering the meter. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 135 (1)(b)(c) and (d) of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003. Thereafter, investigation conducted. P.W.9 conducted investigation by collecting the material. Thereafter, P.W.10 continued the investigation and filed final report before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District, against the appellant and the original owner and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2014.

3.1. After taking cognizance, the learned trial Judge framed the charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135 (1)(b), 135(1)(c) and 135(d) of ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003. On the basis of charges, the learned trial Judge, questioned the appellant and the appellant pleaded not guilty and hence, the trial was conducted and the prosecution adduced the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked the documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P.16 and also marked 3 material objects under MO.1 to MO.3.

3.2. The learned trial Judge, considered the same, examined the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating materials available against him and he denied the same and hence, the case was posted for examination of the defence witness. On the side of the defence, no one was examined and 7 documents were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7.

3.3. A1, who is the owner of the property filed Ex.D.1 to Ex.D7 and pleaded that there was energy theft in his Ice Factory. Therefore, he made a complaint to P.W.1's office. On the basis of the same, inspection was conducted and hence, he is noway connected with the tampering of meter and electricity theft.

3.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the explanation given by A1, acquitted him and convicted A2 on the ground that he was in occupation of premises at the time of inspection, for the offence under Sections 135 (1)(b),(c) and 135(1)(d) of Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , by the impugned order dated 13.08.2020, and sentenced him to undergo 3 years of Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default, to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment each for