J U D G M E N T

Sri. E.I. Sirajuddin, Police Inspector, BESCOM (Vigilance)

and Sri. V. Ramakrishnan, AEE, BESCOM (Vigilance) are present before the Court physically and their statements are placed on record.

Heard Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP for the appellant alongwith Sri. Shesha Karthik Reddy, learned panel counsel for BESCOM and Sri. Javeed S., learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The State of Karnataka-BESCOM Vigilance, KPTCL, Indiranagar, Bengaluru has filed this appeal under section 377 of Cr.P.C to set-aside the judgment and order passed by X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru(CCH-26) dated 31.03.2016 in Spl.C.C.No.188/2006 insofar as awarding inadequate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 and prayed to impose maximum sentence prescribed under law.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is the 'complainant State' and respondent is the 'accused' before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-

The complainant(PW-3) V.C. Walli, was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, KPTCL Vigilance, Bengaluru. On 15.05.2005 at 12.30 p.m., he alongwith his staff Varadaraju- PW.4, Asst. Executive Engineer, M.T. Division and Honnappa (PW-6) PSI and other staff visited the installation belonging to the accused bearing RR No.2EP-2713 situated at property No.64, New Market road in front of Charminar Masjid, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru and inspected the electrical meter and found that the accused had tampered the main cover seal of the meter and thereby meddled with registering of units consumed and thereby committed theft of electricity. Therefore, PW-3-complainant prepared inspection report Exs-P2 and 3 and Ex-P1 spot mahazar and thereafter, he filed the complaint as per Ex-P4 before KPTCL Vigilance Police. The Vigilance police registered the case in Cr.No.210/2002 and after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all six witnesses as PWs-1 to 6 and got marked six documents as per Exs-P1 to P6.

6. The respondent accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and directed to pay backbilling charges as fine amount of Rs.22,659/- and in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal and inadequate sentence passed by the Sessions Court, the complainant KPTCL, BESCOM Vigilance has filed this appeal.

7. It is contended by learned HCGP for the appellant-

State that the impugned judgment of conviction and inadequate sentence passed against the respondent by the Sessions Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. The reasons assigned by the Sessions Court while imposing inadequate sentence are erroneous and improper. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, but, it ought to have imposed three times penalty on the accused. The Sessions Court directed the respondent-accused to pay remaining backbilling charges as fine amount which comes to Rs.22,659/- and has failed to direct the respondent-accused to deposit fine amount. Hence, learned HCGP submits that the judgment of the Sessions Court is not just and proper. The respondent/accused is due for a sum of Rs.40,989.30 towards backbilling charges as mentioned in Ex-P5.

8. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused submits that during the pendency of the matter before the Sessions Court, the respondent/accused deposited a sum of Rs.20,490/- and on 02.04.2016, the accused deposited a sum of Rs.22,659/- and thereby the respondent/accused has complied the order and hence prayed to dismiss the appeal.

9. Learned HCGP and learned Panel Advocate for BESCOM Sri Shesha Kulkarni M. Reddy, submits tha