Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Ramrao Babanrao Jagtap on 30 June, 2017
Bench: N.M. Jamdar
1 258) apeal1389-03.doc
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELL ATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1389 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant.
V/s.
Ramrao Babanrao Jagtap, Major,
Occu: Business,R/o.Shirur,
Taluka Shirur, District Pune. ..Respondent.
Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Appellant-State.
Mr.M.T.Pise for the Respondent.
Coram : N.M.Jamdar, J.
Date : 30 June 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
By this appeal, the State of Maharashtra has challenged
the judgment and order dated 15 May 2003 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ghodandi, Pune acquitting the Respondent-
accused for the offence punishable under sections 39 and 44 of the
Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
2. A First Information Report was lodged on 14 October
2000 by the Deputy Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Pune with the police station, Ghodnadi, Pune. According to the case
2 258) apeal1389-03.doc
of the prosecution, the Respondent-accused, who was the owner of
Ajinkyatara Dhaba, had committed theft of electricity by taking
illegal connection from the electricity pole nearby. A panchanama
was drawn. Crime under section 379 of the Indian penal Code read
with sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was
registered. Charge-sheet was filed and the case was tried by the
learned Magistrate. The prosecution examined five witnesses and
produced the complaint and panchanama on record. The learned
Magistrate held that the ownership aspect of the Respondent was not
proved and the electricity bill showed the name of some other
person. The learned Magistrate also held that, looking at the length
of the wire that was seized, it was not possible to take connection
from the nearby pole. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate by the
order impugned in this appeal, acquitted the Respondent-accused.
3. Heard Mr.S.V. Gawand, learned APP for the State and
Mr.M.T.Pise, learned counsel for the Respondent.
4. Mr.Gawand, learned APP submitted that the trial Judge
has erred in holding that the theft could not have taken place in view
of the position of the electric pole. He submitted that it is not
necessary that the connection could be taken from the electric pole
as it was taken from the wire. I have seen the spot panchanama and
the complaint. In the complaint, it is stated that bamboos were used
along with the wire to take illegal connection. The length of the
3 258) apeal1389-03.doc
bamboo is 12 ft. and wire is 17 ft. The learned Magistrate was not
correct when he states that it was not possible to take connection
from 40 ft. away pole with about 17 ft. length wire.
5. However, there is yet another ground on which the
Respondent has been acquitted i.e. of ownership and connection of
the Respondent-accused to Ajinkyatara Dhaba. It is the specific case
of the prosecution, as seen from the F.I.R. against the Respondent-
accused, that he was the owner of Ajinkyatara Dhaba, who had
committed theft to take electricity illegally to the said Dhaba. This
factum was denied by the Respondent-accused. Witness Arun
Thorat, the Sub-Engineer admitted in his cross-examination that he
has not verified or made inquiries regarding the ownership of the
Dhaba or the licence holder. The electricity bill was produced on
record at Exhibit 32. The name and address is mentioned as
"Ramdas Baban Saswade, Ajinkyatara Dhaba". The name of the
Respondent-accused is Ramrao Babanrao Jagtap. How the
Respondent-accused is connected with Ajinkyatara Dhaba and
consequently committed the theft was not brought on record
satisfactorily by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution that
the Respondent is the owner is falsified. In the circumstances, the
view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be a perverse
view. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and it is
accordingly dismissed.
(N.M.Jamdar, J.)
