Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Sangamesh Rudrappa Nirani on 27 June, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145
                                                         CRL.A No. 100172 of 2016


                      HC-KAR




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                               BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100172 OF 2016 (A)

                      BETWEEN:

                      STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                      THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR,
                      VIGILANCE POLICE STATION,
                      HESCOM, BAGALKOTE.
                                                                      ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

                      AND:

                      SANGAMESH RUDRAPPA NIRANI
                      S/O. RUDRAPPA,
                      AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                      R/O. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
                                                                    ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. AJAY KADAKOL, ADVOCATE)
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR

Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
                            THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.07.02
10:29:01 +0530        &(3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST
                      THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.09.2015
                      PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
                      JUDGE, BAGALKOTE TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI, AT JAMAKHANDI IN
                      SPECIAL CASE NO.92 OF 2009 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
                      AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED BY THE
                      1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE
                      TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI, AT JAMAKHANDI IN SPECIAL CASE
                      NO.92 OF 2009 BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND
                      CONSEQUENTLY,        CONVICT    AND      SENTENCE     THE
                      RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
                      SECTIONS 135 AND 138 OF ELECTRICITY ACT WITH WHICH THEY
                      HAVE BEEN CHARGE SHEETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
                                   -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145
                                          CRL.A No. 100172 of 2016


 HC-KAR



    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                          ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment

of acquittal passed in Special Case No.92/2009 dated

30.09.2013 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot

sitting at Jamakhandi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned

Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge

acquitted the accused/respondent for the offences punishable

under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for

short 'the Act').

2. The abridged facts of the case are as under:

On 27.02.2008 at about 9:00 a.m., the complainant-PW.1-

Smt. Jyothi S. Revanakar, Section Officer, HESCOM, Lokapur

along with the other vigilance squad, HESCOM, Bagalkot

inspected the electricity connection supplied to the factory run

by the accused in the name and style as M/s Nirani Cements

situated at Ningapur Village in Mudhol Taluk. On observation

they found that, before the ETC meter, cut armed cable in C.T.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145

HC-KAR

secondary and P.T. secondary wire in the G.I. pipe, short

connection was made so as to record lower consumption of

electricity than actually consumed, thereby consumed 942 HP +

800 Watts load of electricity and caused loss to the tune of

Rs.2,81,69,202/- to the electricity company due to

unauthorized tampering of electricity meter supplied by the

electricity company. Against this backdrop, complainant-PW.1

lodged a complaint before the appellant-Police against the

accused as per Ex.P2. On the strength of Ex.P2, the appellant-

Police registered the FIR against respondent-accused for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act in Crime

No.143/2008 as per Ex.P19. Subsequently, PWs.19 and 20-the

Investigation Officers conducted investigation and on

completion of the investigation, PW.20 laid charge sheet before

the Trial Court against the respondent-accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Act.

3. In order to prove the charges leveled against the

accused before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 20

witnesses as PW.1 to PW.20 and marked 33 documents as per

Ex.P1 to P33 so also identified 2 material objects as M.O.1 and

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145

HC-KAR

M.O.2. Though the accused did not examine any witness on his

behalf, marked 3 documents as Ex.D3.

4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence,

the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the

charges leveled against him. The said judgment is challenged in

this appeal by the State.

5. Heard the learned HCGP Smt. Girija S. Hiremath for

the appellant-State and the learned counsel Sri. Ajay Kadakol

for the respondent-accused.

6. The primary contention of learned HCGP is that the

learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred in acquitting accused

for the charges leveled against him, without appreciating the

evidence on record in right perspective. She further contended

that PWs.1 and 3-the Assistant Executive Engineers, PWs.11 to

13, 16 and 18 the staffs and other responsible officers of the

electricity company supported the case of prosecution and

unequivocally deposed that they all visited the factory of

accused and found the alteration made by the accused to the

electricity supply and thereby caused loss to the company to

the tune of Rs.2,81,69,202/-. Further, the officials seized the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145

HC-KAR

ETV meter and armed cable from the spot as M.Os.1 and 2. In

such circumstance, the prosecution proved beyond all

reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences

punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Act. Despite, the

learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused based on surmise

and conjecture. Hence, she prays to allow the appeal and to

convict the accused.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-accused contended that the judgment challenged in

this appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and

the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the

evidence on record, acquitted the accuse in a well reasoned

judgment which does not call for any interference. He

contended that the registration of FIR against the accused itself

not sustainable under law for the reason that the complainant

failed to array the company as one of the accused. Further, the

complainant failed to prove that the accused is the authorized

person/owner/partner of the company. He also contended that

PW.1-complainant and PW.2-Executive Engineer failed to place

sufficient materials to prove the tampering of the electricity and

percentage of alleged tampering by way of calculation. Further,

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145

HC-KAR

they also failed to seize the elbows and other materials

allegedly used by the accused to tamper the electricity. He

also contended that the officials have not used any

machine/device to calculate the reading of the meter and

percentage of tampering. Further, PWs.14 and 15-independent

panchas to the mahazar turned hostile to the prosecution case.

As such, without corroboration of testimony of independent

witness, the evidence of official witness cannot be relied. In

such circumstance, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused

for the charges leveled against accused. Accordingly, he prays

to dismiss the appeal.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the entire materials available on record, the

sole point that would surface for my consideration is:

"Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003?

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the

arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and perused

the materials on record.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145

HC-KAR

10. In order to prove the charges leveled against the

accused, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence

of complainant-PW.1 i.e., Assistant Executive Engineer,

Lokapur, HESCOM, PW.2-Executive Engineer of the said

division, PW.3-Assistant Executive Engineer and PWs.11 to 13,

16 and 18-the staffs and the officers of electricity company.

Among these witnesses, PW.1 set the criminal law into motion

by lodging Ex.P2-complaint before the appellant-Police on

27.02.2008. On careful perusal of Ex.P2, she stated that, on

27.02.2008 at about 09:00 a.m., she along with vigilance

squad and others had been to Nirani Cement Factory situated

at Ningapur and on inspection of meter bearing RR No.MDHT-1

installed in the said factory, she found tampering of the same

by joining the armed cables and C.T. secondary wire and due to

the same, the power consumption was showing lesser than

actually consumed. On detail calculation, the accused actually

consumed 942 HP + 800 Watts load of electricity and caused a

loss to the tune of Rs.2,81,69,202/-. Thereafter, she drawn

mahazar in the presence of PWs.14 and 15 and lodged Ex.P2-

complaint before the vigilance squad. Though this witness

reiterated the assertion made in the complaint in her evidence,

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145

HC-KAR

however in her cross-examination she deposed that she did not

observe the reading of meter when the cables were connected

and not connected. She also stated that, she did not calculate

the alleged illegal consumption of electricity by the accused and

the amount for the said consumption of electricity. Further,

though she noticed the clip implanted to the G.I. pipe and the

elbows implanted under the ground, she did not seize all those

materials except the meter and cable. She also admitted in her

cross-examination that, if the wires are connected in the

underground, there is a possibility of spark and also possibility

of zero reading of the meter. Additionally she stated, she does

not remember the name of scribe of Ex.P1-spot panchanama.

Further, PW.2-Executive Engineer who allegedly present in the

scene of occurrence also admitted in his cross-examination that

himself and PW.1 failed to hand over the copy of Ex.P7 i.e., the

technical report to the accused which is a mandatory

requirement under law. He also stated that there was three

elbows in the G.I. pipe and cables were connected beneath the

elbows, however those elbows were not seized. PW.3-Assistant

Executive Engineer also deposed similarly as that of PWs.1 and

2. PWs.4 to 10-the independent witnesses who were allegedly

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145

HC-KAR

participated in the raid turned hostile to the prosecution case.

Though PWs.12 and 13 supported the case of prosecution, they

deposed that the electricity meters were not tampered and the

cables connecting secondary wire connected each other

beneath the elbows situated under the ground, till there i.e., 3

ft. of G.I. pipe installed. These witnesses have also stated, the

officers have not seized either the G.I. pipe or the elbows. In

such circumstance, the evidence of these witnesses established

that the complainant and other official witnesses have not

properly examined the alleged tampering of the electricity and

failed to seize the alleged materials used for the said

tampering. As admitted by PWs.1 and 2, they also failed to

calculate exact units of the electricity tampered by the accused.

On the other hand, according to them, they roughly calculated

the loss to the tune of Rs.2,81,69,202/-. As discussed supra,

the independent panch witnesses-PWs.14 and 15 turned hostile

to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, except the

uncorroborated and unreliable testimony of the official

witnesses, no other cogent evidence available on record to

prove the charges leveled against the accused. No doubt the

testimony of official witness can be believed, but the Hon'ble

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145

HC-KAR

Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar

and Others Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in (1995) 4

SCC 255, has held that, "indeed the evidence of the official

witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they

belong to the police force and are either interested in the

investigating or the prosecuting agency. But prudence dictates

that, their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and

as far as possible corroboration of their evidence in material

particulars should be sought".

11. At the cost of repetition, in the case on hand, the

independent panch witnesses i.e., PWs.14 and 15 have totally

turned hostile to the prosecution case and much inconsistence,

contradictions and embellishments forthcoming in the evidence

of official witnesses discussed supra. As such, there is no

corroborative evidence available on record to believe the

testimony of PWs.1 to 3 the official witnesses. It is on this

ground, I am of the considered view that, the learned Sessions

Judge has rightly acquitted the accused for the charges leveled

against him.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145

HC-KAR

12. Nevertheless, this being an appeal against acquittal,

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.R. Sundara And

Others Vs. State Of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC

581, summarized the principles to exercise the power by the

Appellate Court to interfere in the order of the Sessions Court

in paragraph No.9 as under:

"9. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken."

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145

HC-KAR

13. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Mallappa And Others v. State of Karnataka reported in

(2024) 3 SCC 544 while summarizing the principles in dealing

with the appeal against acquittal in paragraph No.42 held as

under:

"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play 9 AIR 1961 SC 715 while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8145

HC-KAR

the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."

14. Applying the principles enumerated in the above

judgments to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of

the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the

guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court

has taken a plausible view and acquitted the accused for the

charges leveled against him. In that view of the matter, I

decline to interfere in the judgment passed by the Sessions

Court. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the

'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: