Allowed

R.Ramalingaraju, v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC27 Jul 2012CRLRC/772/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the single judges High Court allowed the petition and set aside the conviction and sentence. The Court held that the non-production of the MRT Lab report, required under Rule 257(4) when a meter needle is tampered with, was fatal to the prosecution case and made the findings untenable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case allowed; conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court set aside.

R.Ramalingaraju, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶3

Criminal Revision Case No.772 of 2005

¶4

Date: 27.07.2012

¶5

R.Ramalingaraju and another. … Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶8

rep. by Public Prosecutor. …Respondent

¶9

This Court made the following:

¶10

Criminal Revision Case No.772 of 2005

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside Judgment dated 12.05.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2003 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram, confirming conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.729 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram.

¶13

2. The petitioners are the accused, whereas the respondent is the complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the calendar case.

¶14

3. The accused were tried for offences punishable under Section 39, 44 and 39-A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short ‘the Act’) and were found guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/and in default of paying the fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Sections 39 and 44 of the Act each, which were affirmed in the appeal.

¶15

4. The accused attacks the judgment on the ground that the findings of the courts below for the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Act, are totally erroneous and without sufficient evidence which would inspire the confidence of the court. 5. The facts which lead to the prosecution of the accused are as follows. A.1 was the Executive Director, A.2 was the Assistant Manager and A.3 was the Electric Incharge of M/s.Acquaint Exports Limited, Seesali village, Kalla Mandal of West Godavari District. On receipt of credible information, on 8.12.1995 at 3.30 p.m, P.W.1,

¶16

Divisional Electrical Engineer, Detection of pilferage of Energy and his staff inspected H.T.Service with No.ELR 332 of M/s.Acquaint Exports Limited and noticed that A.1 and A.2 involved in pilferage of electrical energy by tampering with the meter box seal and MD knob seal to avoid payment of penal charges exceeding maximum demand, with the help of A.3 and forcibly brought the MD indicator to ‘0’ condition. After opening the meter box, it was also observed that MD known seal bearing No.064204 with an impression of A.P.S.E.B was found to be tampered with, one hole of the seal bit was found to be widened and the sealing wire was kept loosened. P.W.1 seized the two tampered seal bits along with sealing wires, marked as M.Os.1 and 2 and put-in a sealed cover, marked as Ex.P1. P.W.1 prepared a detailed inspection notes, marked as Ex.P2 and sent a detailed report, marked as Ex.P4 to P.W.6 Investigating Officer. On 15.12.1995 at 4.00 p.m, on receipt of Ex.P4 report, P.W.6 registered the case in Crime No.67/95 under Section 39,44 and 39-A of the Act and investigated into the case. After the completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3, alleging that they committed the offences punishable under Sections 39, 44 and 39-A of the Act. 6. For the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked.

¶17

7. The plea of the defence is denial of the charges and denial of incriminating evidence adduced. Learned counsel for the accused contends that only basing upon the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P5, the accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the appellate court and in fact by virtue of Rule 257 (4) of the Electricity Manual, if the needle was brought to ‘0’ condition, there will be every chance of bending the needle or pointer and in such case, the meter ought to have been sent to the MRT lab and in fact, P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that the

¶18

meter was sent to the MRT lab, but the corresponding report was not produced before the Court and, it was suppressed which is fatal to the case. Further, one day before the commission of alleged offences, A.1 to A.3 informed the authorities about the non functioning of the meter giving a request to take necessary action in writing, which proves the bonafides of the accused. But, the Courts below observed while convicting and sentencing the accused that there was no need for the authorities concerned to foist false case against A.1 to A.3, which in fact weighed a lot in the ultimate result of the case, which is not tenable. Ultimately, he has pleaded for the acquittal of A.1 to A.3 setting aside the judgment of the trial court and also the appellate court for the reasons stated.

¶19

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. 9. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the courts below properly appreciated the matter and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court are tenable or not.

¶20

10. I have gone through the record. There is no dispute that one day prior to the alleged incident, A.1 to A.3 informed the department in writing that the meter was not functioning and hence necessary repair was to be made. P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that the meter was sent to the MRT lap for necessary testing and report. The same was reflected in ExP2 report in column No.5(h) of Ex.P2. Quite surprisingly the corresponding report of the MRT lab was not produced before the trial Court or the appellate court. When the meter was sent to the said lab for the purpose of testing it and sending necessary report, non filing of the said report before the court with regards to the allegations made is fatal. Clause 257(4) of the Electricity Manual provides that if a needle of a meter is tampered with, it would be automatically bent and then the meter is

¶21

to be sent to the concerned MRT lab for necessary test report, which in fact has not been complied with.

¶22

12. The trial court only convicted A.1 to A.3 on the ground that there was no need for the authorities to foist a false case against them which is not suffice. It is necessary to establish the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the charges beyond any reasonable doubt. The question of drawing any presumption against them on the ground of lack of any intention to foist a case does not arise at all. In fact, doing so is against the cardinal principles of criminal justice system. When the report of the MRT lab has not been produced before the Court, an adverse inference is to be drawn that if it is produced before the court, it would support the plea of innocence of the accused. The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 cannot be taken as suffice to convict A.1 to A.3 in the circumstances stated above. Ultimately, I find that the findings of the courts below are not tenable and are liable to be set aside.

¶23

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentences imposed.

¶24

______________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶25

Date: 27.7.2012 KVS

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶27

Criminal Revision Case No.772 of 2005

¶28

27.07.2012

¶29

kvs

R.Ramalingaraju, v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramalingaraju, v. The 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

Shaik Khader Bee, Vs Shaik Parveen Bee

N. Raghavulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Srinivasa Rao, Vs Smt. Pentakota Chandrakala

Boggavarapu Gokula Krishna, (A15) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gaddam Ram Reddy Vs The Statement of Andhra Pradesh

Bogadameedi Gangaram Vs The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor