AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Narayana Reddy, J.—This Judgment according to law, based on the legal material placed, on Record, arises out of a Criminal Appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against the respondents 1 to 4, under sub-sections (1), (4) and (5) of Section 378, Cr.P.C, 1973, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 4, infra.
The sole appellant in this Criminal Appeal corresponds to the sole complainant in the said CC. No. 370 of 1997, of the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. R-1 to R-4, herein, correspond, respectively, to A.1 to A.4 therein.
The parties are, here-in-after, referred to, with reference to their respective descriptions before the said Magistrate''s Court (Trial Court), unless, otherwise, so specified.
The Judgment, dated 27-7-1998, of the said Magistrate''s Court, made in CC. No. 370 of 1997, of its file, adjudicating thereupon, as under:-
I) Finding A.1 to A.4, not guilty of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910; and
II) Consequently, acquitting A.1 to A.4, in respect thereof, under sub-section (1) of Section 248, Cr.P.C, 1973, and, consequently, directing them to be set at liberty, etc.
Perused the material papers of the Record.
Arguments were heard of the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole appellant herein (complainant in the said CC. No. 370 of 1997), and the learned Counsel for the A.1 to A.4 (respondents herein).
The complainant is the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS., team-II, APSE Board, Vidyutsoudha, Hyderabad. He filed the charge sheet against the A.1 to A.4, in the said trial Court, under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, inter alia, alleging, as under:-
a) On 21-3-1997, around 4.00 P.M., the complainant, along with the staff and others, inspected the service connection No. A2-18178, Cat. II, in the name, of Smt. Ameena Hussain, wherein, M/s. Tesla Diagnostics, Panjagutta X Roads, Hyderabad, was being run.
b) During that inspection, the complainant noticed, that, A.1 to A.4, who are all Doctors, working therein, were indulging in the theft of electric energy, by tampering with the meter box, CT box, incoming and outgoing seals, meter terminal cover, and meter cover seals, as well as, meddling with the meter mechanism, with an intention to suppress the actual consumption to be recorded by that meter.
c) Hence, the complainant prepared inspection notes and seized the meter box seal, CT box seal, incoming and outgoing chambers seals, and sealed the same, duly signed by the representative of the consumer, for tests thereof, etc., as prescribed;
d) PW.3 tested the meter, on 22-3-1997, and found, that the meter was slow, and was recording less, by (-) 38.16%, and that, the meter was not working in one Phase ie., B Phase. Many other irregularities and illegalities were found to be committed by A.1 to A.4, violating the provisions of the said Electricity Act, warranting punishment under the said Sections 39 and 44 of that said Act.
e) Due to the said offence committed by A.1 to A.4, the electricity department sustained illegal loss of electric energy. The monthly value is estimated at Rs.7,54,188-00.
f) Hence, a criminal case, in Cr. No. 5/1997, was registered against A.1 to A.4, under the said Sections, and, later, charge sheet is filed against the A.1 to A.4, for their punishment under Sections 39 and 44 of the said Electricity Act, 1910.
Because, before the said Trial Court, A.1 to A.4, when examined under sub-section (2) of Section 240 of Cr.P.C, pleaded not guilty in respect of the separate common charges framed against them u/s 39 and Section 44 of the said Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the said Trial Court tried the said CC., following the procedure prescribed for the trial of a warrant case, and other prescribed provisions of Cr.P.C, 1973, and, finally, adjudicated there upon, as set forth, in Para 4, supra.
Aggrieved thereby, and, questioning the, validity and legality, thereof, the State of Andhra Pradesh filed the present Criminal Appeal, as set forth, in Paras 1 and 4, Supra.
Hence, the point for consideration and adjudication thereupon, in this Criminal Appeal, will be, as under:-
(1) Whether the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, and the adjudications made thereby, and set forth in Para 4, Supra, are unsustainable, either, at fact, or, Law, and hence, are liable to be set aside, or, modified, or, interfered with, in any manner ?
(2) To what reliefs ?
Arguments were heard on both the sides, as set forth, in Para 6, Supra.
In the process of the Trial of the said CC. No. 370 of 1997, the Trial Court, on behalf of the prosecution, recorded the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5, and exhibited the documentary evidence, by way of Exs.P.1 to P.9, and Nos 1 and 2, while the accused did not adduce any evidence, oral, or, documentary, before that Court.
No additional oral, or, documentary, evidence is sought to be adduced before this Court, by any of the parties hereto.
PW.1 is the complainant in the case. PW.2 is a registered consumer, being, the owner of the building, where A.1 to A.4 are claimed to be running, M/s. Tesla Diagnostic Centre, etc. PW.3 is the Expert, who is claimed to have examined the seized meter, etc. PW.4 is examined as the Expert, who gave MRT report. PW.5 is the Investigating Officer. Exs.P.1 and P.2 are inspection notes prepared at the time of inspection of the disputed meter, etc., on the said date. Ex.P.3 is the Inspection Report. Ex.P.4 is the call check report. Ex.P.5 is the meter test report. Ex.P.6 is the complaint. Ex.P.7 is the lease deed. Ex.P.8 is the Test certificate. Ex.P.9 is the FIR. MO.1 is the sealed cover, containing the seals. MO.2 is the meter.
After considering the foregoing oral, documentary and material object, evidence, placed by the Prosecution, on Record, in detail, and the arguments of the learned Counsel before it, in its impugned Judgment, the Trial Court, finally, arrived at, and recorded a finding of not guilty of A.1 to A.4, of the afore-said two offences, giving them the benefit of doubt, in respect thereof.
After perusing the now impugned Judgment of the Trial Court, vis-�-vis, after going through the material, vis-�-vis, the grounds of appeal, questioning the same, vis-�-vis, the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant, and the learned counsel for the respondents herein, vis-�-vis, the legal position prevailing on the subject, vis-�-vis, having regard to the probabilities and improbabilities, and other allied circumstances, I am fully satisfied with the reasonings, observations, findings, and the final adjudications recorded by the Trial Court, in its Judgment, ultimately, acquitting A.1 to A.4, as set forth, in Para 4, Supra.
The impugned Judgment, and the consideration of the material by the Trial Court, as was made therein, as also the findings recorded, and the final adjudications made thereby, do not suffer from any factual, legal, or, inherent, illegality, or, infirmity, either, in appreciation of the material placed before that Court, or, in the interpretation of any document, and the final adjudications made thereby, etc., so as to warrant this appellate Court, to interfere therewith, on any such question of fact, or, Law, or, on the ground that substantial miscarriage of Criminal Justice was caused by that Court.
Hence, the impugned Judgment of the Trial Court, and the order of acquittal recorded by it, etc., and set forth in Para 4, Supra, are liable to be confirmed, in toto.
Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of all, factual and legal, merits, and hence, is liable to be dismissed, in toto, as is being done, hereunder:-
Hence, the High Court both hereby adjudicate upon the Criminal Appeal, as under:-
I) Confirming, in toto, the impugned Judgment of the Trial Court, set forth, in detail, in para 4, Supra.
II) Consequently, dismissing the Criminal Appeal, in toto.