Appellant accused No.2 challenged conviction under Section 136 of the Electricity Act for theft of copper busher rods from a transformer. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, denied probation benefit on grounds of electrical theft, but reduced sentence to three months RI plus Rs.25,000 fine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:47674 CRL.A No. 527 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 527 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MANJUNATHA @ MANJA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O ANGADI MALLANNA R/AT BASAVANAHALLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR – DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADHUGIRI POLICE.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE I - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR IN SPECIAL CASE No.111/2010 DATED 10.4.2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 136 OF ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by accused No.2 praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 10.04.2012 passed in Spl.C.No.111/2012 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru, whereunder the appellant -accused No.2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 136 of the Karnataka Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “K.E. Act” for brevity) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.
Special Court. The Special Court has framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 136 of the K.E. Act and Section 379 of IPC. In order to prove charges, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to 10, got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 9 and material objects as M.O. 1 and 2. The statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Learned trial Judge after hearing arguments on both sides has formulated points for consideration and passed impugned judgment convicting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 136 of the K.E. Act. The said judgment of conviction and order on sentence has been challenged by the appellant –accused No.2 in this appeal.
No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State.
No.2 would contend that the alleged theft has taken place on 10.03.2009 in the night hours and complaint came to be filed on 13.03.2009 and there is delay in filing the complaint. Two ingots have been recovered under mahazar –Ex.P3 from the scrap shop of P.W.6 at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. There is no material to show that the copper busher rods have been melted and the M.O.1 and 2 are ingots are the same i.e., 07 copper busher rods. P.W.6 has not supported the case of the prosecution. The pancha i.e. P.W.5 to seizer mahazar – Ex.P3 has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that there is no connectivity of evidence to show that accused persons committed theft of 07 copper busher rods as there is no recovery of the said copper busher rods. He further submits that the offence committed by this appellant –accused No.2 is the first offence and he is suffering from mental illness. He may be enlarged by invoking provisions of Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant –accused No.2 for the offence alleged against him.
impugned judgment, trial Court records and considering the grounds urged, the following point arises for my consideration:
Whether the Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant –accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 136 of the K.E. Act?
My answer to the above point is in negative for the following reasons
There was theft of 07 copper busher rods from the transformer fixed to the water supply unit in the premises of Maramma Temple on 10.03.2009. The same has been observed by water man on the next morning at 6.30a.m. and he has intimated the same at 9.00 a.m. to the Office of P.W.1 i.e. Assistant Engineer, BESCOM, O&M-1, Madhugiri. P.W.1 on coming to know about the same has visited the spot and found missing of copper busher rods has filed the complaint as per Ex.P1 on 13.03.2009. P.W.9 is Head Constable has received the complaint
(Ex.P1), registered case and sent FIR –Ex.P7 to the Judicial Magistrate. P.W.9 has visited the spot and drawn mahaxar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of P.W.2 and 3 – Panchas. P.W.2 has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated regarding drawing of mahazar in respect of theft of copper busher rods as per Ex.P2.
produce 07 copper busher rods sold by them to him. P.W.6 has told that he has converted those 07 copper busher rods into two ingots weighing 02 K.G and 4 K.G. each and they were seized under Mahazar –Ex.P3. P.W.4 is one of the pancha to Ex.P3 has deposed regarding scrap shop owner producing two copper ingots in the presence of this accused No.2 at the time of drawing mahazar as per Ex.P3. The said two ingots are at M.O.1 and 2. Noting material has been elicited in the cross examination of P.W.4. P.W.10 –Investigating Officer has also deposed regarding voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 as per Ex.P8 and Ex.P.9 and securing P.W.4 and 5 as panchas and accused persons taking them to the scrap shop of P.W.6 and seizer of M.O.1 and 2 –two copper ingots produced by P.W.6 under Mahazar –Ex.P3. The said evidence of P.W.4 and 10 will establish the seizer of copper two ingots at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 from the shop of P.W.6 where accused Nos.1 and 2 have sold 07 copper busher rods.
the time of seizer mahazar –Ex.P3 and they have also affixed their signature on Ex.P3. Even though the exact 07 copper busher rods have not been recovered but two copper ingots weighing 2 K.G. and 4 K.G. each have been recovered at instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 from the shop of P.W.6 wherein they have sold 07 copper busher rods to P.W.6 as per their voluntary statement which are at Ex.P8 and Ex.P9.
period of 01 year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months.
stated to be suffering from metal illness, sentence imposed on him i.e. rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year is on higher side and it requires to be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months and fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 month.
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 10.04.2012 passed in Spl.C.No.111/2012 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru is affirmed. The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months and fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 month.
NC: 2024:KHC:47674 CRL.A No. 527 of 2012
iii) The trial Court has ordered only return M.O.1 to
BESCOM. M.O.2 is also material of BESCOM, it
is also ordered to be returned to BESCOM.
Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
DSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant could validly claim probation under the Probation of Offenders Act despite theft of electrical material?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manjunatha @ Manja
State of Karnataka by Madhugiri Police
Shivashankar Amaranavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
