This appeal is preferred by the accused against his

conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for

offences

punishable

under

Section

135(1)(b)

and

138 (1)(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2.

Accused has been sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only) for the

offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of Act, in

default, to undergo R.I for six months.

3.

He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-

for the offence punishable under Section 138(1)(d), in

default, to undergo R.I for two months.

4.

Heard the learned Amicus Curiae for appellant

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent and perused the material on record.

3

5.

It is the case of prosecution that the

complainant 3 PW.1 namely Assistant Engineer CESC,

Mysuru, along with his staff and the police inspected the

installation bearing No.R.R.RKL.3567 belonging to the

accused, installed in his farm house situated in

Sy.No.132/2 of Devalapura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru

Taluk, on 28.02.2007 at around 4.00 p.m. and found

that the accused was dishonestly using electricity by

tampering the meter in question in such a way that it

was not recording accurately and thus preventing it from

duly registering the electricity consumption and thereby

committed offences punishable under Sections 135 and

138 of Electricity Act, 2003.

6.

The

complainant

namely

the

Assistant

Engineer CESC, Mysuru has been examined as PW.1. He

has deposed in his evidence that on 28.02.2007 at about

4.00 p.m. he along with other officials and the vigilance

police went to the spot and inspected the meter bearing

No.RR.RKL.3567 installed in the house of the accused

4

and found that the seal on the terminal cover of the

electric meter pertaining to the said installation had been

removed. Wires which were in the terminal block had

been taken out. Electric connection had been directly

taken from the main line to the farm house by passing

the electric meter, so that the electric consumption was

not recorded in the electric meter. He has stated that

there were 10 bulbs of 60 watts, one T.V. of 120 watts,

one fridge of 7 watts, 7 fans of 60 watts, one electric

oven of 200 watts, one mixer of 185 watts, 3 CFL bulbs

of 15 watts, one geyser, air conditioner of 1200 watts

and a DVD Player of 60 watts. The total strength of the

various electric equipments found was 8950 watts. He

has deposed that inview of tampering of the electric

meter the company had incurred a loss of Rs.27,735/-.

He has further stated that an inspection report as per

Ex.P2 and a spot mahazar 3 Ex.P3 were drawn. He has

further stated that the accused was present at the spot

when Exs.P2 and P3 were drawn and the accused put his

signature to Ex.P2 as per Ex.P2(b).

5

7.

The

conducting

of

spot

inspection

and

tampering of the meter and drawing up of Exs.P2 and P3

are spoken by PWs.2, 3, 7 and 8. The said witnesses

have corroborated the evidence of PW.1. Their evidence

is further corroborated by the evidence of PW6. From

the spot, MOs.1 to 3 i.e., 1) 10 ft. 2 PVC insulated

aluminium white wire 2) ¾ x ¾ ft. plywood sheet and 3)

meter, are seized.

8.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

appellant that premises in question does not belong to

the appellant. The owner of the property is one

N.Venugopal. The appellant is only a GPA Holder of said

N.Venugopal. He would place reliance on Ex.P.23 and

Ex.P.24 marked through PW4 namely the Secretary of

Devalapura Village Panchayat to contend that Ex.P.23 is

the Power of Attorney given by the owner of the property

namely N.Venugoapal to the accused herein and

therefore, it is his contention that the appellant/accused

not being the owner of the property, could not have been

6

prosecuted. He contends that the prosecution has not

produced the electric bills in the name of the appellant to

show that the appellant was either making use of the

electric meter or he is the owner of the premises. It is

also his contention that all the witnesses examin