Dismissed

T.Narayan Singh v. State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC17 Oct 2011CRLA/2616/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal of an accused convicted for unauthorized tapping of electricity using a sand filter unit. The Court held that the prosecution evidence, including inspection reports and statements, undeniably proved the offense.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 379 IPC.

T.Narayan Singh Vs State of a.P., rep by its… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRL.A.No.2616 of 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 379 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.5,000/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal.

¶5

It is alleged that PW.1 who was the Assistant Divisional Engineer in DPE, Sangareddy along with two Engineers and staff made local inspection on 06.06.2000 and found that the accused was running sand filter unit in Pocharam village by drawing electricity unauthorisedly directly tapping low tension overhead line by means of three wires for running 3 HP motor. Plea of the accused is one of total denial and one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found him guilty of the charge.

¶6

It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is no independent evidence to show that the accused was running sand filter unit and that he was drawing electricity unauthorisedly directly from overhead line and that there is also no evidence to show that it was the accused who connected the unit to the overhead line and that no panchnama was prepared for seizure of MOs 1 and 2 motor and connecting wires.

¶7

In support of the prosecution, apart from PW.1, PWs 2 and 4 were

¶8

also examined to speak to detection of this offence. PW.2 was working as Assistant Engineer, DPE, Sangareddy. PW.4 was working as Additional Assistant Engineer, Isnapur. They supported evidence of PW.1 and they also signed in Ex.P.1 inspection notes prepared by PW.1 at that place. On the basis of Ex.P.1 inspection notes, PW.1 prepared Ex.P.2 inspection report estimating loss to the Department at Rs.31,126/- due to unauthorised tapping of electricity by the accused from overhead lines. On the next date of detection, PW.1 gave Ex.P.3 complaint to PW.5 who was the then Inspector of Police working in Vigilance, APTS Police Station, Sangareddy. PW.5 registered case in Crime No.21 of 2000 and issued Ex.P.5 F.I.R. At the time of investigation, he prepared Ex.P.6 rough sketch of the scene. After completing investigation, PW.5 filed charge sheet before the lower Court.

¶9

It is evidence of PW.1 that on 06.06.2000, he along with other staff proceeded for inspection to the outskirts of Pocharam village and that the accused was running sand filter unit by using electricity unauthorisedly by directly tapping nearby LT overhead line with the help of 3 black colour wires and was running 3 HP motor. He says that with the assistance of his staff, he disconnected the supply of electricity in the presence of the accused himself and prepared Ex.P.1 inspection notes, seized electric motor and also wires and that he also took statement of the accused in his inspection notes and that the accused also signed in it. M.O.1 is the motor and M.O.2 consists of

¶10

wires connecting the motor to the overhead line. PWs. 2 and 4 corroborated evidence of PW.1 on all aspects. In cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that though he has examined neighbours, none of them came forward to give a statement. He says that no panchnama was conducted for seizure of the motor and wires except noting the same in his inspection report. He says that in the inspection report, seizure of the wires is mentioned but not electric motor. He further says that statement of the accused was given in his presence. He denied the suggestion that statement of the accused was recorded by force. Statement of the accused contained in Ex.P.1 reads that he was availing supply to sand filter unit without meter unauthorisedly and that he availed the same for three days and that electrical officials seized the same and that he indulged in theft of electrical energy by direct tapping for three days. Though during trial, the accused tried to retract from his statement contained in Ex.P.1, he did not deny his signature below the said statement contained in Ex.P.1. No retraction statement was given at any time immediately after Ex.P.1 by the accused. Evidence of PWs 2 and 4 also reinforces that the accused gave statement to PW.1 in Ex.P.1 admitting pilferage of electrical energy by directly tapping overhead lines and using the same for running his sand filter unit.

¶11

Apart from evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4, who are officials of the Department, there is evidence of PW.3 also in support of the prosecution case. PW.3 is Sarpanch of Pocharam Gram Panchayat.

¶12

He says that the accused has got sand filter unit in his village in S.No.1 and that he gave Ex.P.4 certificate to that effect to PW.1. In cross-examination, PW.3 deposed that he does not know survey numbers and to whom they belong to and that he is not connected with revenue records and that at the instance of the police, he issued the certificate. This Court is not concerned with ownership of land in S.No.1 wherein sand filter unit is located. Evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 and P.4 reveal that the sand filter unit in S.No.1 was being run by the accused only. Even though there is no direct evidence as to who originally connected M.O.2 wires to LT overhead line, there is evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 to show that with the help of M.O.2 wires connected to LT overhead line, the accused was drawing electricity to his motor M.O.1 for running the sand filter unit. Thus, evidence on record undoubtedly revealed that the accused was drawing electrical energy unauthorisedly by pilferage, attracting liability under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. The lower Court after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion in favour of the prosecution in accordance with the evidence on record and the law. There are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with finding of guilt recorded by the lower Court.

¶13

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶14

Dt.17^th October, 2011 PNV

¶15

____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J

T.Narayan Singh v. State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Narayan Singh v. State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trinadha Rao Lavati, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sardar Gurunam Singh Vs Ch. Venkateswhwarlu

Chaliganti Rama Rao, Vs Chaliganti Prameela

Pampana Nageswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Imran Khan Vs State of a.P., rep by Public Prosecutor

K.Venkatasubbaiah Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor