Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.
Sub Divisional Officer Electricity Distribution Sub-Div.-I - Applicant
Versus
Brijesh Kumar Gupta And Others - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 378 No. 223 Of 2018
Decided On : 17-08-2022
ELECTRICITY TAMPERING - Criminal Case - Section 135 Indian Electricity Act - [Section 135 Indian Electricity Act] - The court discussed the evidence and legal principles related to the tampering of electricity meter under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act. It emphasized the presumption of innocence, the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellate court's power to review evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the acquittal of the accused persons charged under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act for tampering with an electricity meter. The prosecution's evidence included witness testimonies and documentary evidence. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's judgment of acquittal was based on the evidence available on record and could not be termed as based on 'surmises and conjectures'. It emphasized the presumption of innocence and the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove tampering under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act and the trial court's judgment of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence, the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellate court's power to review evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. The trial court's order of acquittal was affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Learned counsel for the parties have consented to dispose this appeal on merits as the record of the trial Court is available.
2. Heard Shri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Satya Bhusan Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 3 and perused the record.
3. The instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the Sub Divisional Officer, 33/11 K.V. City Power House, Electricity Distribution Sub-division-I, Hardoi against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Special Judge/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Criminal Case No. 34 of 2009 (State vs. Brijesh Kumar Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 2672 of 2007, under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi, whereby the trial Court had acquitted the accused persons of the charges framed under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act.
4. The brief facts giving arise to the instant appeal are to the tune that one Virendra Kumar Sharma, Sub Divisional Officer-I, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Hardoi had given a written information to the S.H.O. of Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi stating therein that the accused Brijesh Kumar Gupta has been sanctioned a load of 225 KW at his electricity unit situated at B-5 Industrial Area, Hardoi and on 23.08.2007, Shri Nirankar Gupta, Executive Engineer Parikshan, Hardoi and Shri Harishanker Agrawal, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Hardoi had inspected the above-mentioned Electricity Meter No. U.P.E. 64210 and found the seal of the same tampered and after sealing the meter in the presence of the representative of the consumer the same was sent for investigation to M/s Secure Meter Ltd. and as per the report of the M/s Secure Meter Ltd. submitted vide letter dated 06.10.2007, the seal of the meter was found tampered.
5. On the basis of above application, a Criminal Case bearing Case Crime No. 2672 of 2007 was registered against accused Brijesh Kumar Gupta and the investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Shri Rajesh Singh, who after investigation of the case filed the charge-sheet against the respondents for committing the offence under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act.
6. The charge against the accused persons was framed under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act, however, the accused persons have denied the charges and claimed trial. One of the accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Gupta had died during the course of trial and proceedings against him were abated by the trial Court.
7. The prosecution in order to prove its case had produced following witnesses:-
P.W.-1/Virendra Kumar Sharma, Sub-Divisional Officer, Hardoi, P.W.-2/Nirankar Gupta, Executive Engineer Parikshan, Hardoi, P.W.-3/Pawan Kumar, Assistant Engineer (Meters), Hardoi, P.W.-4/Abha Jaiswal, Writer, Chick F.I.R., P.W.-5/Rajesh Singh, S.I. (Investigating Officer), P.W.-6/Harishanker Agrawal, Executive Engineer, P.W.-7/Virendra Solanki, Technical Assistant.
8. Apart from the above-mentioned witnesses, the prosecution has also relied on the following documentary evidence:-
‘Tehrir’ (Exhibit-ka-1), Investigation of Meter and letter related to analysis report, (Exhibit-ka-2), Sealing Certificate (Exhibit-ka-3), Chik F.I.R. (Exhibit-ka-4), Site Map (Exhibit-ka-5), Charge-sheet (Exhibit-ka-6), letter related to analysis report, (Exhibit-ka-7).
9. After closure of the evidence by the prosecution the statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the evidence of the prosecution and claimed themselves innocent and in their defence has produced a carbon copy of the installation certificate of the meter dated 13.07.2007 and carbon copy of meter reading as well as the certified copy of the statement of P.W.-5/S.I. Rajesh Singh recorded in Criminal Case No. 55 of 2009 decided on 28.07.2015.
10. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence available o
AI
The duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellate court's power to review evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
The presumption of innocence in criminal jurisprudence means the appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless evidence shows clear insolvency or injustice in the trial court's decision.
Where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of evidence which is but barely possible, it is obvious duty o....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mandatory provisions must be adhered to in lodging complaints.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to establish the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence and independent witnesses to establish guilt in theft of electricity cases; mere allegations are insufficient for conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
