Karnataka High Court
Sri D H Honnegowda vs State By Kptcl Police Station on 5 March, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9178
CRL.A No. 68 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SRI D H HONNEGOWDA
S/O.LATE HONNEGOWDA
R/AT.NO.33, 3RD MAIN
VINAYAKA LAYOUT
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE 560 072.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VASUDEVA IYENGAR K T.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY
KPTCL POLICE STATION
BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP.)
LAKSHMI T
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
Location:
High Court 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
of DATED:14.12.11 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
Karnataka
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.22/03-
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 39, 40 AND 44 OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 R/W
SEC.379 OF IPC. AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9178
CRL.A No. 68 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High
Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the
evidence and material on record.
2. This appeal is preferred by the accused against
the judgment and order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the
Court of X Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore, in Spl.C.C.No.22/2003, whereby the Trial Court
has convicted him for the offence punishable under
Section 39, 40 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act read
with Section 379 of IPC.
3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the
accused with a dishonest intention has tampered with the
electric meter bearing R.R.No.PNLG 17952 fixed to one
Manjunatha Industries, No.73, Rajagopalanagar Main
Road, Bangalore, so that the consumption of the electricity
is not recorded and thereby caused loss to the KPTCL to
the tune of Rs.32,808/-.
NC: 2024:KHC:9178
4. The complainant/AEE, KPTCL, Vigilance Squad,
lodged a complaint as per Ex.P-3 to the SHO, KPTCL Police
Station, Vigilance, Bangalore, regarding theft of electrical
energy by the accused in the outhouse attached to
Manjunatha Industries, No.73, Rajagopalanagar Main
Road, Bangalore. As per the said complaint, on receiving
an information regarding theft of electricity, the
complainant along with Vigilance Staff visited to the
outhouse attached to Manjunatha Industries on 22.4.2000
at about 4.00 p.m. and inspected the installation-
R.R.No.PNLG 17952 and found that the accused was
dishonestly and illegally abstracting electrical energy by
connecting the load wire to the main wire in the meter
terminal and used it to his outhouse by connecting 1 No. x
2 KW electric stove, 2 Nos. x 40 W tube lights, 1 No. x 100
W - TV, 1 No. x 60 W Fan, 1 No. x 200 W bulb and in total
2.44 KW. It is alleged that the consumer/accused has
committed theft of electrical energy and thereby
committed offence punishable under Section 39, 40 and
44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
NC: 2024:KHC:9178
5. FIR was registered against the accused for the
aforementioned offences under the Indian Electricity Act,
1910. PW.5 conducted the investigation and filed charge
sheet for the offence punishable under Section 39, 40 and
44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 r/w Section 379 of
IPC. It is relevant to mention that the charge was framed
for the offence punishable under Section 39 of the I.E. Act,
1910 r/w 379 of IPC. No separate charges are framed for
the offence punishable under Section 40 and 44 of I.E.
Act, 1910. However, the trial Court has proceeded to
convict the accused even for the said offences, which may
not be proper.
6. The learned counsel for appellant has
contended that the meter number is wrongly mentioned by
the complainant as 11952, whereas the meter number is
17952 and therefore, the alleged theft committed is not in
respect of the meter pertaining to the accused. He would
also contend that there is difference of timing mentioned
by the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the case of
NC: 2024:KHC:9178
the prosecution that the complainant and others visited
the installation at about 4.00 p.m. on 22.04.2000 and
then conducted an inspection etc is also doubtful. He has
further contended that in Ex.P2 the signature of the
accused is not obtained, therefore preparation of the said
mahazar in the presence of accused is also doubtful.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader on
the other hand has supported the impugned judgment and
sought to reject the appeal.
8. PW.2 working as AEE in KPTCL/Vigilance has
filed the complaint as per Ex.P3. In his deposition he has
stated that on 22.04.2000, he received the information
about theft of electricity in the factory belonging to the
accused and therefore, he went to the said factory at
about 4.00 p.m., along with his staff and inspected the
meter and found that the meter was not running. There
was no terminal cover seal to the meter and in the
presence of panchas he opened the cover and found that
the wires were passing directly to the electric load
NC: 2024:KHC:9178
bypassing the meter and therefore, the meter was not
recording. Thereafter, he is said to have disconnected the
connection with the help of lineman and prepared Ex.P2-
mahazar. In the cross-examination he has stated that the
accused was present at the time of preparing the
mahazar. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of
PW.2 - Police constable working in the vigilance squad,
KPTCL. Witnesses have denied the suggestion put to them
that no such inspection was conducted at the spot. The
accused has not taken any defence stating that he was not
the owner of Manjunath Industry or the out house
attached to the said industry or that the meter was not
standing in his name.
9. PW.4 working as a lineman has also deposed
about the disconnection of the power supply and
preparation of Ex.P2. He has also stated that wire was
connected from the load side to the main side and by
doing so the consumption will not be recorded in the
meter.
NC: 2024:KHC:9178
10. In view of the above evidence on record, the
contention of the learned counsel that the appellant has
not committed any offence and the charges are not proved
etc., cannot be accepted. No worthwhile admissions have
been brought in the cross-examination of the witnesses to
disbelieve their evidence.
11. The trial Court has sentenced the accused to
undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 39
of Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
12. The offence is committed on 22.04.2000 i.e.,
prior to the commencement of the Electricity (Karnataka
Amendment Act, 2001) by which imprisonment was made
compulsory for the offence punishable under Section 39 of
the Electricity Act, 1910.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the
accused can be set aside. Accordingly, the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:9178
ORDER
i. The appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The conviction and sentence passed against the
accused/appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 40 and 44 of the Electricity Act, 1910 is set aside.
iii. The conviction under Section 39 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910 r/w Section 379 of IPC is confirmed.
The sentence of imprisonment imposed against the
accused for the said offence is set aside.
v. The Fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) imposed for the said offence by the trial
Court is confirmed. In default of payment of fine, the
accused shall undergo S.I. for a period of three months.
vi. Fine amount shall be paid before the trial Court
within a period of four weeks.
NC: 2024:KHC:9178
Order shall be communicated to the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM,HB
