The principle of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto law should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law.

JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J

CRM-22855-2020 in CRA-S-625-SB-2017

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for placing on record the true translated copies of Annexure A-1 to A-4 and A-6 as additional evidence and A-5 and A-7 for placing on record as both the documents are already exhibited before the Court below.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed specifically in relation to A-6 and A-7. Annexure A-7 was already on record as Ex. D-27 and A-6 is translated copy of diary entry of the complaint filed by applicant/appellant.

As A-6 has been taken from the record of respondent itself, no prejudice will be caused to them and despite of many opportunities being given to them no reply to counter the same has even been filed either to doubt its existence or the evidentiary value thereof.

MAIN CASE:

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib convicting the appellant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.

2. The allegations in brief are that a case was registered against the appellant on the basis of letter bearing memo no. 190 dated 01.03.2013 issued by Er. Barinder Pal Singh, Addl.A.E. as per which Er. Kulwant Singh Sandhu along-with his staff checked the meter bearing No. CK46/503 installed in the name of appellant in a box on pillar outside his house wherein it was found that meter was neither locked; nor having MTC seal; UID No. PB0045 LED of meter was not flickering; Terminal block of the meter was burnt and the incoming wire was connected directly after bypassing the meter and the theft of electricity was being committed. On checking the load of the house, it was found that accused was using the cutter/ press machine after making a joint with the four core cable of the department. Checking report was prepared and on the basis of same, a notice was issued to appellant calling upon him to deposit a sum of Rs.2,62,566/- as compensation and 50,000/- as compounding fee. In addition, FIR was registered against the appellant who was subjected to trial and subsequently vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, he was convicted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.

3. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to this order of conviction dated 24.01.2017 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Muktsar Sahib under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that it is an admitted fact in disposition by Kulwant Singh who appeared as PW-1 that neither the raiding officials took the meter in question in their possession; nor any cable wire or other machinery and admittedly, nothing was sent to any forensic lab for its examination. He further submits that no photography of the raid was conducted although prosecution produced a CD with regard to videography of the alleged place of occurrence during the course of trial but as there was no reference of any videography in the checking report, Ld. Court did not rely upon it. Learned counsel also places reliance upon instruction No.21.2(c) of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred as Supply Code-2007) further amended vide notification dated 21.06.2023, to contend that Electric Meter which was checked by raiding party was installed in a box on pillar outside the house and in such a situation appellant cannot be held liable for theft of electricity.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the appellant has been rightly convicted by the Ld. Special Court on the basis of the complaint which was duly corroborated with the statements given by the official witnesses and hence, there is no reason to interfere