The prosecution must establish evidence of ownership and presence for unauthorized electricity consumption, and failure to produce independent witnesses may result in benefit of doubt to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

This application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 13.01.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5/37 of 2005-04 by the learned Ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)-II, Keonjhar dismissing the appeal and confirming his conviction under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act vide judgment dated 03.09.2004 by the learned C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in G.R. Case No. 591 of 1998-T.C. Case No. 239 of 2002 and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 20 days.

PROSECUTION CASE

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.06.1998 at about 5.00 P.M., P.W.2-Md. Saukat Alli, SDO, Ghatgaon Electrical Sub-Division, Ghatgaon accompanied by Police, conducted surprise raid against theft of electricity along with GRIDCO Vigilance Police in village Pitapiti and found that the accused was unauthorisedly consuming electricity in his poultry farm by lighting a electric bulb by taking direct connection from the L.T. Line of GRIDCO by hooking process. He lodged F.I.R. before the Police at the spot and a case was registered and investigation was taken up by P.W.4-S.A. Jabar, Inspector, GRIDCO Vigilance Police Station, Bhubaneswar. On completion of investigation, P.W. 4 submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner faced trial for commission of offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act.

DEFENCE PLEA

3. The plea of the petitioner was one of the denial.

WITNESSES

4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses namely, P.W.1-Nisakar Singha, a Helper of GRIDCO, P.W.2-Md. Saukat Alli, SDO, Ghatgaon Electrical Sub-Division, Ghatgaon who is the informant, P.W.3- Pravat Chandra Tarasia, Junior Engineer, GRIDCO, Harichandanpur and P.W.4-S.A. Jabar, Inspector, GRIDOC Vigilance Police Station, Bhubaneswar.

5. The Defence examined two witnesses. The accused Ranjit Sahoo has examined himself as D.W.1 and Jugal Kishore Sahoo, a co-villager as D.W.2.

TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT

6. The learned C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Keonjhar found on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record that the prosecution has successfully established that the petitioner not being a bona fide consumer of GRIDCO, obstructed and consumed electricity in his poultry farm through artificial means like hooking process. The onus was on him to prove that he did not have any dishonest intention in making such artificial hooking but he failed to do so nor did he make any attempt to prove absence of dishonest intention. He was found liable to be punished under Section 30 of the Indian Electricity Act and was convicted under Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910 and sentenced as thereunder.

APPELLATE COURT JUDGMENT

7. The learned appellate court after scrutiny of the judgment of the learned trial court the record and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, found that there was no evidence regarding the ownership and possession of the poultry farm in question had been raised before the learned trial court but since law did not require that the prosecution should establish the title of the said house, there was no need to prove the ownership and the that a person in possession of the house can commit theft of electricity energy for his own consumption by hooking process for which the owner