Dismissed

The Inspector of Police, Apts Team-I Hyderabad v. Mirza Arif Baig

Telangana HC17 Feb 2012CRLA/1429/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal addresses the prosecution of accused individuals for offenses under the Electricity Act involving pilferage and meter tampering. The High Court reviewed the lower court's acquittal, finding insufficient proof regarding tenancy, intent for tampering, and the timing of meter loss, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Inspector of Police, Apts Team-I Hyderabad Vs Mirza… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1429 of 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appeal is filed against the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.1593 of 2001 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 05.10.2001.

¶5

The accused was prosecuted for offences under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. According to the case of the prosecution, A-1 is the owner of the plastic industry and A-2 is the tenant and on 22.02.1999, when the electricity officials inspected the premises in the presence of A-2 and found there was pilferage of energy and tampering with the meter and consequently the prosecution was launched.

¶6

The accused pleaded not guilty and after framing necessary charges and considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.P-1 to P-14, the lower Court acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶7

The point for consideration is whether the acquittal of the accused is legal and sustainable?

¶8

POINT:

¶9

So far as A-2 is concerned, it is only an allegation made by the prosecution that he was the tenant of the premises. Though he was said to be present at the time of inspection, there is no proof of his tenancy. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly found that he is not guilty of the offence. Furthermore, in the cross-examination P.W.1, who is said to have inspected the premises, has stated that the meter was struck out and they did not find any foreign material inside the meter. But, subsequently, he stated that he could not confirm the

¶10

same. So also P.W.2, who is said to have surprised the premises in the presence of A-2, claimed that the seals were tampered and the meter was not working. He ordered for removal of the meter and subsequently the meter was said to have been fitted and he did not speak about the result of it. The evidence of P.W.3 is of no avail since he was not present at the time of inspection. It is only a case of disconnection by him. The evidence of P.W.4 is about verifying the meter and issuing the certificate. The evidence of P.W.6 is about checking the meter and finding of tampering with the seal. He also noticed that there was a bending meter disc and not rotating. The meter was struck up. His evidence does not show that the fault noticed by him in the meter was due to any act of tampering or placing any foreign material. His testing of meter and giving opinion is evidently prior to the commencement of the trial. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was not inclined to accept the prosecution case. There is no conclusive evidence of tampering with the meter and there is no conclusive evidence of pilferage by the act of the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the loss was to a tune of Rs.31,251/-. The evidence of P.W.1 also does not show as to when the meter was seized. There is no evidence as to when it was replaced. Taking into consideration of all the circumstances, the lower Court has given benefit of doubt, since there is no proof of tampering and intentional cause of loss to the Board, and acquitted the accused. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the orders of the lower Court.

¶11

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶12

________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶13

Date: 17-02-2012 MR

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶15

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1429 of 2004

¶16

DATE: 17-02-2012

¶17

The Inspector of Police, Apts Team-I Hyderabad v. Mirza Arif Baig

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Inspector of Police, Apts Team-I Hyderabad v. Mirza Arif Baig

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkishan Vs K. Anjaneyulu

chanumolu Narsimha Rao Vs Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada-cum-Competent Authority

M/s. Gowra Leasing and finance Ltd., Vs Mrs. Kanchan Tandon, Major Direcot

M/s Lakshmi Jewellery,Abid Road,Hyderabad a Partnershipl Vs K.Chandra Sekhar

Shaik Moulali, Vs Siripurapu Veerbhadra Rao

The Agricultural Market Committee Vs M/s.Raja Rice Traders,rep. by its Managing Partner