IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 19.09.2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.11.2023 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Crl.A.(MD).337 of 2016 The Assistant Execitive Engineer, TANGEDCO Distribution, Thiruchendur. ... Appellant Vs.

1. G. Jeyaprakash S/o. S.J. Gayas.

2. The State represented by:

The Inspector of Police, Kulasekarapattinam Police Station, Udankudi Taluk, Tuticorin. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for records and set aside the Judgment and acquittal passed in Special C.C. No.9 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin dated 26.06.2015 by allowing this Criminal Appeal.

For Appellant : Mr. B. Ramanathan, Standing Counsel for [Tamil Nadu Electricity Board]

For Respondents : Mr. A. Robinson [for R1]

Mr. M. Senthil Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) [for R2].

ORDER

This Criminal appeal in Crl. A(MD) No.337 of 2016 has been preferred by the appellant as against the Judgment and acquittal passed in Special C.C. No.9 of 2011 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin dated 26.06.2015, wherein before the Trial Court, the 1^st respondent / accused has been charged for the offence under Section

135(1)(b) of Indian Electricity Act.

2. The schema of the prosecution case is as under:

2.1. The accused got electricity connection for the Service Connection No.81 at Tiruchendur Main Road, Kallamozhi Village in the name of S.J. Gayas on 21.08.2002. When the officials of the Electricity Board inspected the said service connection at about 5.00 p.m. in presence of the witnesses Mr. Shanmuga Rangasamy, Mr. Ravindran and Mr. Muthukutty, it was found that the seals affixed in the meter were damaged and MRT seals were removed and the numbers in the meter readings were reduced and then again it was sealed with different type of seals. Thereby, the accused caused theft of 3,55,158 units of electricity and the damages were calculated at Rs.29,54,418/-. Therefore, the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of Indian Electricity Act.

2.2. In fact, initially the case was taken on file and pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate has transferred the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Tuticorin as per the order passed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5633 of 2007 dated 13.07.2007. Thereafter, the Principal Sessions Court, Tuticorin has taken the case on file in Special C.C. No.9 of 2011 and conducted the case. After hearing both sides and perusing the case records, the Trial Court has framed charge under Section 135(1)(b) of Indian Electricity Act as against the accused.

2.3. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, which he denied and hence, the prosecution, in order to prove the case against the accused, had examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.4 were also marked. On the side of accused, DW1 was examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D.3 were marked. After completion of prosecution side evidences, the trial Court had examined the 1^st respondent herein / accused u/S.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, during the course of trial and the same was also denied by the accused as false.

2.4. After analysing the entire evidence adduced and upon hearing both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the 1^st respondent / accused as not found guilty of offence under Section 135(1)(b) of Indian Electricity Act.

3. Aggrieved upon the above said Judgment and acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the defacto complainant / appellant on the following grounds:-

3(i) The Judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to facts, law and probabilities of the case.

3(ii) The trial court ought to have seen that the offence has been committed under Section 44(1)(c) r/w Section 39 of Indian Elec