AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal petition is filed to quash the charge sheet, filed against the petitioners/A1 and A2, in C.C.No.5 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional
Sessions Judge â€" cum â€" Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad. The offences alleged are under Sections 135 (b) and (c) and 149 of the
Electricity Act, 2003.
It is the case of the prosecution that the accused committed theft of energy. A1 company is a registered consumer carrying on quarry operations in
land in Sy.Nos.185/4 and 185/5 of Ankireddypalli Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. A1 company is represented by A2. It is alleged that
A2 dishonestly meddled with meter and wiring mechanism of electrical industrial service connection No.RRN-1404, HT Cat-I, and caused illegal loss
to the licensee to a provisional assessment of Rs.17,96,041/- by suppressing the actual consumption contrary to the terms and conditions of supply of
electricity.
It is stated that on 21.08.2007, L.W.1 visited the premises of A1 Company/registered consumer and found that “Y†Phase voltage and “Bâ€
Phase currents were not available in the meter display while all the phase voltages were available at the test terminal block. It was also found that the
consumer register, which is normally maintained in all the HT services, was not available and that the meter terminal cover seals provided to the
service connection were also not available. L.W.1 collected the meter data into Common Meter Reading Instrument (CMRI) and proposed for
detailed inspection on the next day, as the consumer load was not available and that there was a need for the presence of the Meter Relay Test
(MRT) Engineers. On 22.08.2007, L.W.1 along with L.Ws.2 to 6 inspected the electrical service connections in detail which were in use with a
connected load of 636 HP + 8.94 KW for stone crushing activity in the presence of the consumer representatives L.Ws.7 and 8 and observed the
following points, which facilitated the accused to commit theft of electrical energy and to suppress actual consumption to be recorded in the meter:
Meter terminal cover has no seals, “Y†Phase voltage and “B†Phase current in meter display are zero.
Meter Terminal Cover opened and secondary leads taken out and found that “Y†Phase PT lead and “B†Phase CT leads of M (Forward
Flow of Current) & L (Return Flow of Current) copper leads not available and was inserted with PVC insulation, there was no electrical contact.
Hence, “Y†Phase voltage and “B†Phase current are zero in meter display and meter is recording defective consumption, while other leads
found OK.
The inspecting team seized the incriminating material of part of wires existing to the meters to suppress the actual consumption in presence of the
consumer representatives and preserved them in duly sealed and signed cover under the cover of inspection notes prescribed by the APCPDCL under
the Electricity Act. Based on the above inspection report, a complaint dated 24.08.2007 was lodged by L.W.1 with Vigilance and APTS RR (N)
Circle Police Station, which was registered as FIR.No.3217 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 135 (b) and (c) and 149 of the Electricity Act. In
the course of investigation, L.W.13 recorded the statement of L.Ws.1 to 8 and addressed letters to different authorities to ascertain the ownership
particulars and the consumption details of the accused company and its representatives. From the particulars provided by different authorities, it was
found that A1 Company obtained valid licenses from the concerned departments for business of mining and stone crushing apart from electrical HT
connection with a Contracted Maximum Demand of 600 KVA and brought the same into use at Sy.Nos.185/4 and 185/5 of Ankireddypalli village,
Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
The investigation further revealed that A2 is conducting the day-to-day affairs of A1 Company and A2 dishonestly indulged in theft of energy by
meddling with the actual meter mechanism and meter wirings. The accused removed the meter terminal cover seals provided by MRT bearing
No.A11536 and A11537, gained access into the meter terminals. The copper conducting wires of “Y†Phase PT and “B†Phase M.L
Terminals of CT coming to the meter from CTPT and inserted them into meter terminals with insulation (breaking of metering circuit from CT PT)
thereby suppressed recording of actual consumptions in the meter. It was found that such acts of the licensee/accused caused illegal loss of
Rs.17,96,041/- to the department and thus, the acts committed by accused come within the meaning of theft of electricity punishable under Section 135
(b) and (c) and Section 149 of the Electricity Act.
Mr. Durga Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioner No.1 owns the stone crushing unit in the subject site, which is
established with all requisite permissions. Petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director. The stone crusher was given on lease to the respondent No.3,
Syed Ghouse, Al-Al-Jibail Colony, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad vide Deed of Agreement cum Memorandum of Understanding cum Declaration
dated 19.07.2007. Since then the respondent No.3 was utilizing the crushing machinery together with the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas on lease
basis for a period of one year with certain terms and conditions. The lease initially commenced from 19.07.2007 to 18.06.2008, which is extendable by
mutual consent for further period of eleven months.
As per the terms and conditions of the lease, the respondent No.3 should procure certain amenities and permissions from the Governmental
Authorities and corporations etc. for his crushing machinery and to pay the bills on time. Any non-compliance or unpaid bills or misdeeds and violations
of any kind will be totally to the account of the respondent No.3 and he will be answerable for such violations during the lease period. It was for the
respondent No.3 to meet the requirement of all spare parts, components, ware parts, consumables, lubricants, manpower etc., as required for proper
maintenance and smooth operation of the crushing plant owned by the petitioner No.1.
The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent No.3 took possession of the crushing unit and started running the business with all
amenities and required electricity power. The petitioners and the respondent No.3 informed the concerned authorities including the electricity
department about the lease in favour of the respondent No.3 in respect of the crusher plant and addressed letters individually to the CPDC of A.P.
Limited on 02.07.2007 and 25.07.2007 respectively. During the relevant period, the respondent No.3 informed the petitioners that there is lack of
power consumption and there is no proper response from officials and the engineers concerned. Due to the vehement approach and complaints of the
respondent No.3, the officials of the Electricity Department have targeted him and raided the crushing plant in a preplanned manner and foisted a false
case. The respondent No.3 approached the Court of law and succeeded in utilization of power consumption. In spite of the same, the officials of the
department foisted a false case against the petitioners, in their absence merely taking into consideration the records. After lodging the complaint, the
petitioners approached the departments and submitted an explanation and informed them of the lease agreement with the respondent No.3. The FIR
or the charge sheet does not speak that the petitioners are gaining power supply to their own benefit or the nature of utilization.
Having considered the grounds urged in the criminal petition and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the
opinion that there are several disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. There is an allegation of theft of electricity, tampering of electrical equipment. After investigation, the police filed charge
sheet. The contention of the petitioners that the respondent No.3 is solely responsible for running the crusher unit and also for any acts or misdeeds is
not a point to be considered in a quash petition. It has to considered and decided in the trial as to whether the respondent No.3, Syed Ghouse, is a
lessee and indulged in tampering of electrical meters/equipment and theft of energy. Based on the MOU and lease deed, it is not for this Court to
appreciate any evidence in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and give any finding. All the points urged by the petitioners are to be
decided by the trial Court after full fledged trial and hearing. It is settled law that the Court exercising inherent powers under Section482 Cr.P.C. will
not appreciate the evidence which is not part of the charge sheet filed by the police.
The criminal petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.