[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Manjunath @ Kathle Manja vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2025

                                                       -1-
                                                                 CRL.A No.621 of 2012
                                                             C/W CRL.A No.647 of 2012
                                                             AND CRL.A No.901 of 2012


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

                                                  BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.621 OF 2012 (C)
                                           CONNECTED WITH
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.647 OF 2012 (C)
                                                 AND
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.901 OF 2012 (C)


                       IN CRL.A. NO.621/2012:

                       BETWEEN:

                       1.   SHAMIULLA
                            S/O. KHADIR SAB
                            AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
                            OCC: MASON
                            RESIDING AT SEEGEBAGE
                            BHADRAVATHI
                            SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

                       2.   MARUTHI
                            S/O. THIMMEGOWDA
                            AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
                            OCC: AGRICULTURIST
                            RESIDING AT ASHWATH NAGAR
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA              BHADRAVATHI
NAGARATHNA
Location: High Court
                            SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
of Karnataka                                                          ...APPELLANTS

                            (BY SRI P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI R.B. DESHPANDE)

                       AND:

                            THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            BY BELUR POLICE STATION.
                                                                     ...RESPONDENT

                            (BY SRI DIVAKAR MADDUR, H.C.G.P.)

                                                 ***
                              -2-
                                       CRL.A No.621 of 2012
                                   C/W CRL.A No.647 of 2012
                                   AND CRL.A No.901 of 2012


IN CRL.A. NO.647/2012:

BETWEEN:

1.   MANJUNATH @ KATHLE MANJA
     S/O. SHANKARAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
     CARPENTER
     HOSAMANE, BHADRAVATHI
     SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

2.   MANJUNATHA
     S/O. GANGADHARA
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     BAR BENDING WORK
     SURGI THOPU
     BHADRAVATHI
     SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
                                            ...APPELLANTS

     (BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY HASSAN RURAL POLICE STATION.
                                           ...RESPONDENT

     (BY SRI DIVAKAR MADDUR, H.C.G.P.)

                           ***

IN CRL.A. NO.901/2012:

BETWEEN:

1.   SANTHOSHA
     S/O. CHANNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
     AUTO DRIVER
     HOSAMANE
     BHADRAVATHI.
                                 -3-
                                          CRL.A No.621 of 2012
                                      C/W CRL.A No.647 of 2012
                                      AND CRL.A No.901 of 2012


2.   ALTAF AHAMAD
     S/O. ABDUL KAREEM
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     MASON WORK
     HANUMANTHANAGARA
     BHADRAVATHI.

3.   KUMARA
     S/O. ELUMALAI
     AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
     PAINTING WORK
     HANUMANTHANAGARA
     BHADRAVATHI.
                                                ...APPELLANTS

     (BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY BELUR POLICE STATION.
                                               ...RESPONDENT

     (BY SRI DIVAKAR MADDUR, H.C.G.P.)

                            ***

       THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 30-4-2012 PASSED
BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, IN SPECIAL CASE
NO.118 OF 2010    CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1
TO 7 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 136 OF THE
INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003, AND UNDER SECTION 379 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

       THESE   CRIMINAL   APPEALS     HAVING   BEEN   HEARD   AND
RESERVED ON 5-12-2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
                             -4-
                                      CRL.A No.621 of 2012
                                  C/W CRL.A No.647 of 2012
                                  AND CRL.A No.901 of 2012



                      CAV JUDGMENT

Criminal Appeal No.621 of 2012 is filed by the

appellants/accused Nos.4 and 5, Criminal Appeal No.647

of 2012 is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 6,

and Criminal Appeal No.901 of 2012 is filed by the

appellants/accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 praying to set-aside the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated

30.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, at Hassan, in Special Case No.118 of 2010,

whereby the accused are held guilty for the offences

punishable under Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act,

2003 (for short, 'Electricity Act') and Section 379 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and are

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of

two years each for the aforesaid offences.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on

19-9-2010 at about 9:30 p.m., there was interruption in

supply of electricity at Beluru 66 K.V. Line. Hence, the

complainant along with his staff went to inspect the line

and found that, within the limits of Soorapura Village,

some miscreants had stolen electricity wire of 800 meters

worth Rs.1,02,000/-. Hence, on 20-9-2010 at 9:30 a.m.,

he lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, the case

has been registered and the Investigating Officer laid the

charge-sheet against the accused.

3. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the trial Court

complied with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') by supplying

prosecution papers and framed charges against the

accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, the prosecution,

in order to prove its case, examined in all nine witnesses

as PW1 to PW9, got marked seventeen documents as per

Exs.P1 to P17 and thirteen material objects as per MOs.1

and 13. Assessing the entire evidence, the trial Court

arrived at a conclusion that, the accused committed the

offences charged against them and thus, convicted them

for the offences punishable under Section 136 of Electricity

Act and under Section 379 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the

same, the accused have preferred the appeals.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-

accused Nos.1 to 7 and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

5. Sri P.B. Umesh and Sri B.S. Prasad, learned

counsel for the appellants, have contended that the

conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is

contrary to law, evidence and probabilities of the case.

The prosecution is guilty of material suppression of

evidence and has not come forward with true origin of the

incident. There is delay in filing the complaint and the

delay has been conveniently used by the prosecution to

foist a false case against the accused. The trial Court has

mainly relied on the evidence of PWs.2 to 5, which is full

of material omissions, contradictions, and suffers from

legal infirmities. The trial Court also relied on the evidence

of PW2, Investigating Officer, and contents in Ex.P9-

recovery mahazar, wherein PWs.6 to 8 have not supported

the case of the prosecution and thus, the recovery of

articles is not proved in accordance with law. The evidence

of PW5 is not corroborative with the evidence of PW2,

which seriously doubts the case of the prosecution and

thus, the same goes to roots of the case. Further, the

Investigating Officer has not followed due procedures

while seizing the articles and therefore, the recovery itself

is doubtful. The trial Court should have given the benefit of

doubt and acquitted the accused. The trial Court

committed serious error in relying on statements of PWs.6

to 8 at Exs.P15 to P17 made before PW9, wherein the

same has not been proved in accordance with law. The

trial Court ought to have extended the benefit available

under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,

1958, to the accused. On all these grounds, they prayed to

allow the appeals.

6. Per contra, Sri Divakar Maddur, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State, submits

that the trial Court convicted the accused based on the

material evidence available before it. The recovery of

material objects at the instance of the accused is proved

by examining the independent witnesses to seizure

mahazars. All the witnesses have supported the case of

the prosecution and hence, no interference is called for by

this Court. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the appeals.

7. In view of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for both parties, the point that arises for the

Court's consideration is,

Whether the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court requires interference at the hands of this Court?

8. Firstly, to connect the accused to the theft of

electricity wires, the prosecution must establish specific legal

elements of the offence provide concrete evidence linking the

individual to the crime. The primary burden of proof is on the

prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly, the prosecution must prove that the accused had

willful and dishonest intention in committing theft of electric

wires. The act of committing theft of electric wires for

personal gain is often considered prima-facie evidence of this

intention. Thirdly, the prosecution must prove the physical

act of the accused that he performed the physical act of

cutting, removing, taking away, transferring, possessing the

electric lines or materials without the owner's consent.

Fourthly, the act must have been done without the

authorisation or consent of the licensee or owner of the

property. Fifthly, the property in question must be identified

as the specific electric lines or materials that were stolen.

Sixthly, if the accused cannot provide a reasonable or legal

explanation for possessing the materials, his conduct can

fortify the allegations of theft.

9. In the light of the above propositions, it is just and

necessary to analyse the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses.

10. The complaint was lodged by PW1, Harish

Kumar, who was working as Junior Engineer, KPTCL. He has

stated that on 19-9-2010 around 9:00 p.m., there was

interruption in supply of electricity line. Hence, he informed

- 10 -

the said fact to his superior Officers and lodged the complaint

as per Ex.P1. The Police drew spot mahazar as per Ex.P4 in

his presence at the scene of occurrence. He has further

stated that, thereafter, the Police called him to the Police

Station, where he saw one Tata Sumo vehicle and in the said

vehicle, the stolen wires, axe-saw blade, cutting-plier and

pipes were kept. The accused, who committed theft of

copper wires, were present in the Police Station. He

identified MOs.1 to 13. He further stated that approximate

cost of wires would be between Rs.65,000/- and Rs.70,000/-.

In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to

discredit his testimony.

11. PW2, Investigating Officer, has deposed that on

20-9-2010, the Sub-Inspector of Police, has informed him

over phone about the registration of the crime. Accordingly,

on the same day, he visited to the spot and drew mahazar on

the spot shown by the complainant as per Ex.P2 and deputed

his staff to trace the accused. He further stated that on

24-9-2010, when he was on duty, he received credible

- 11 -

information and immediately, he along with his staff went to

Hagare Reserve Forest Area and noticed the accused in Tata

Sumo vehicle, bearing Registration No.KA-02 B-9024, and

also noticed 10 bundles of copper wire. He enquired the

accused, they told that the said wires were installed to the

Towers situated at Soorapura Village. Therefore, he brought

the accused to the Police Station and recorded their voluntary

statements. He further stated that, on the same day, in

between 12.30 p.m. and 1.30 p.m., he drew mahazar in the

presence of panchas as per Ex.P3 and seized Tata Sumo

vehicle, 10 bundles of copper wire weighing 358 kgs., PVC

pipe tied with axe-saw blade and 7 feet height PVC pipe tied

with rubber tube. He further stated that accused No.1 gave

his voluntary statement stating that he would show the

place, where he has kept the stolen articles. Pursuant to his

voluntary statement, they went to Government Eucalyptus

Forest Area at Hagare Village and accused No.1 showed the

spot and accordingly, he drew mahazar as per Ex.P4 and

took photographs of the said place as per Exs.P5 to 8. He

further stated that accused Nos.1 and 4 gave voluntary

- 12 -

statements admitting the commission of theft of copper wire

and as per the order of this Court, he took accused No.1 to

his custody and on the voluntary statement of accused No.1,

he led accused No.1 and pancha witnesses in their

Departmental Jeep to Scrap Shop situated at Channagiri and

accused No.1 showed PW6 to whom he had sold the wires

and in turn, PW6 also identified accused No.1 and produced

44 ingots and he recovered the same under Ex.P9. Though

he was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the

accused, nothing erstwhile has been elicited to disbelieve his

testimony with regard to his role of investigation.

12. PW3, Sub-Inspector of Police, Beluru Police

Station, has stated that on 20-9-2010 at about 9.30 a.m.,

the complainant lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. He

registered the case, sent First Information Report to the

Court as well as to his superior Officers and handed over

further investigation to the Circle Inspector of Police.

13. PW4, Assistant Line Man at TLM Branch, Beluru,

has stated that Soorapura Border comes under his

- 13 -

jurisdiction and on 19-9-2010 at about 9:30 p.m., at

Soorapura Border 66 K.V. Line, there was theft of copper

wire in six Towers, worth Rs.1,02,000/-. Therefore, PW1 took

him and others to the spot at about 10.30 p.m. In the cross-

examination, he has admitted that on 24-9-2010, the Police

have recorded his statement. He admits that out of three

electricity lines, the left side line, which was drawn from

Hassan to Beluru was stolen. He admits that it is not possible

to touch the electricity line by the common people. He further

admits that he does not know whether PW1, or the

witnesses, who were present at the spot, attested the

mahazar or not and he does not know, who have put

signatures to the mahazar. Though this witness was

thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the

accused, nothing much has been elicited so as to disbelieve

his testimony.

14. PW5, witness for seizure mahazar-Ex.P3 and spot

mahazar-Ex.P4, has deposed that on 24-9-2010, he attested

the mahazar at Hagare Police Station and at that time, he

- 14 -

noticed Tata Sumo Vehicle in the Police Station and in the

Tata Sumo vehicle, he also noticed 10 bundles of copper

wires, which were seized by the Police as per Ex.P3 and the

accused were also present. He identified the accused before

the Court. He further stated that the accused admitted the

commission of theft and stated that they would show the

spot, where they committed theft of electricity wire.

Therefore, the Police took him along with the accused to the

spot and drew mahazar as per Ex.P4 and he attested the

same. He further stated that the Police shown the stolen

articles to him and he identified the same as per MOs.1 to 13

before the Court. Though this witness has been thoroughly

cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused,

nothing much has been elicited so as to disbelieve his

testimony.

15. PW6 is a receiver of stolen property. He has

deposed that he is running Scrap Shop, by name and style,

ZS Scrap Shop at Channagiri Town. He does not know

accused Nos.4 and 6 and he has not purchased the copper

- 15 -

wire bundles from accused Nos.4 and 6. Though he has

identified his signature on Ex.P9-recovery mahazar, but he

has stated that he cannot identify 10 bundles of copper wire

and he has not given any statements before the Police. He

was treated as hostile and was cross-examined by the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, where he denies that on

25-9-2010, the Police brought accused No.1 to his Shop and

informed that accused No.1 along with other accused

committed theft of copper wires from electric Towers drawn

from Hassan to Beluru and sold the same to him and he had

produced ingots, which were converted out of the wires

purchased through the accused and the Police seized the

same by drawing mahazar. Therefore, the evidence of this

witness is not useful to the prosecution.

16. PW7 and PW8 are the witnesses for recovery

mahazar-Ex.P9 for having recovered 44 ingots from the shop

of PW6. However, these witnesses have turned hostile and

not supported the case of the prosecution.

- 16 -

17. PW9, Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Holenarasipura. He has deposed that on

15-11-2010, the Circle Inspector of Police, Beluru, filed

application to record the statements of PWs.6 to 8. He

further deposed that on 19-11-2010 PWs.6 to 8 appeared

before him, he enquired them and they informed that they

voluntary came to give statements and he ascertained that

PWs.6 to 8 have come voluntarily to give statements and

there is no force from the Police. Therefore, he recorded the

statements of PWs.6 to 8 in his own handwriting as per

Exs.P.15 to 17, respectively.

18. In the instant case, the first informant/PW1 and

the Assistant Line Man/PW4 of the KPTCL have clearly stated

that near Soorapura border, there was theft of electric copper

wires in six Towers, worth Rs.1,02,000/- which belongs to

KPTCL. PW3 confirms registration of the F.I.R., PW5 speaks

regarding drawing of seizure and spot mahazars, respectively

as per Exs.P3 and P4. PW9, Senior Civil Judge, recorded the

statements of PWs.6 to 8. PW2 is the Investigating Officer,

- 17 -

who has clearly stated regarding theft by the accused,

drawing of seizure, spot and recovery mahazars and hence,

from the evidence of these witnesses, it is clear that the

accused have committed the crime.

19. PWs.6 to 8, independent witnesses to recovery

mahazar-Ex.P9, have turned hostile and not supported the

case of the prosecution.

20. The testimonies of PWs.1 and 3 to 5 clearly

reveal that the stolen electric copper wires were recovered by

the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused,

which is the best piece of evidence to connect them to the

crime. Hence, the prosecution has been able to establish the

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

21. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence and after assigning proper reasons,

has convicted the accused for the charged offences. Hence,

there is no illegality committed by the trial Court.

- 18 -

22. Learned counsel for the appellants alternatively

contended that the trial Court convicted the accused for a

period of two years each for the alleged offences and the

sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused

were arrested on 25-9-2010 and were in custody throughout

trial and were released on bail by this Court on

13-9-2012. Hence, they submit that as the accused have

served substantial sentence of one year, eleven months and

eighteen days, there is no point in keeping the accused in

custody for another twelve days. Hence, they prayed for set-

off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period already

undergone by the accused.

23. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader submitted that since the accused are still to serve

twelve days of sentence, no leniency should be shown

against them. Thus, he sought for rejection of the prayer of

the learned counsel for the appellants.

- 19 -

24. In view of the submission made by the learned

counsel for both parties, it is just and necessary to analyse

Section 428 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

"428. Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment.-- Where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, enquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him."

(emphasis supplied)

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Mr. Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut and Others

reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 974, at paragraph No.12,

held as follows:

- 20 -

"12. As far as Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, an indispensable requirement to invoke Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is that there must be a conviction. The conviction must be followed by a sentence of imprisonment. It must be for a term and it should not be imprisonment in default of payment of fine. If these requirements exist, then the occasion opens up for applying the beneficial provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. However, for it to be invoked the existence of detention undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry or trial in the 'same case' is indispensable. If these requirements are satisfied, the convict would be entitled to the set off for the period of detention which he has undergone."

Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the benefit

of set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. can only be applied

if the detention is undergone in the same case in which the

conviction was imposed, not in other cases, emphasizing

this is a key and indispensable requirement for the

beneficial provision to apply.

- 21 -

26. In this case, the accused have been convicted

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of two years each

for the offences punishable under Section 136 of Electricity

Act and under Section 379 of IPC and now, they have

sought for set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. in respect

of the sentence already undergone by them and they are

not seeking set-off in respect of imprisonment in default of

payment of fine. Thus, the accused have fulfilled the

requirements as referred in the decision cited supra.

27. The trial Court has sentenced the accused for a

period of two years each for the offences punishable under

Section 136 of Electricity Act and under Section 379 of

IPC. As per the judgment of the trial Court, it reveals that

the accused were arrested on 25-9-2010 and were in

custody throughout trial, and they were released on bail by

this Court on 13-9-2012. Hence, they have served the

sentence of one year, eleven months and eighteen days,

which is nearly two years. The offence is committed in the

year 2010 and thus, no purpose would be served in

keeping the accused in custody for another twelve days

- 22 -

and hence, the benefit of set-off as contemplated under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is given to the accused. Therefore,

in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeals

filed by the accused deserve to be partly allowed. Hence,

the following

ORDER

i. Criminal appeals are partly allowed.

ii. The judgment of conviction dated 30-4-2012 in

Special Case No.118 of 2010 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, at Hassan, against the

appellants/accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences

punishable under Section 136 of the Electricity Act,

2003, and under Section 379 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860, is hereby confirmed.

iii. The sentence imposed against the appellants is

hereby modified and they are given set-off for the

period of detention already undergone by them, i.e.

for a period of one year, eleven months and eighteen

- 23 -

days, as per Section 428 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

iv. The appellants are set at liberty, if they are not

required in any other case.

v. The bail bonds, if any, of the appellants shall stand

cancelled.

The Registry is directed to return the trial Court

record with a copy of this judgment, forthwith.

Sd/-

(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

KVK