Karnataka High Court
Sanna Krishanappa S/O Nanappa Lamani vs State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2011
Author: K.Govindarajulu
Bench: K.Govindarajulu
IN THE HIGH COU RPE B
}
AT
KARNA a AKA. CIRCUIT BENCH
BHARWAD :
pony
eel ages
THE HON'BLE MR.
BETWEEN
Sannakrishnappa
S/o. Nanappa Laman,
ge. OO years,
Oece: Agriculture;-. -.
R/o. Attikatti Village,
Ta: Mundarzi, a
Dist: Gadag.-
APPELLAN
(By Sri. Mahant4 youda,-AGy 4
of Karnataka by | HES SC OM,
'Gurt of Karnataka,
i _ me ch 5 Dhar wad.
win gaeek pe?
OPere:
AND Sessions Juage i i Judee,
. PRE OCC No. 5/2005 and conseq uently acquit the appellant
offence punishable unaci - Sections 135 of | ;
This CRL. Appeal coming on for adm ission this day, the
court delivered the following:
i. The accused in Special Case No. 5/05 onthe ie
of District & Sessions Judge, Gadag, 1s the appel ant.
2. The case of the State is 5 thal, he is the owner of a
flour mill, he has taken power supply.t0 i e flour mill, While
so, there is a creak ble 1 informati on 40 P. ws i about ihe thelt of
the power supply by the: ae ctiged, 'So, he along with other staff
and pa nehas: vi jsited:t the siemides-here the flour milf is run,
took the assistant cet P. Wed, checked the meter, found that the
power is drawn tro from the main | line without it passing throug
the. meter, So.P W. tc c rims that accused has committed thefl
j
of power' This. case of P.W.1 is taken up for investigation and
_charge.sheet is filed after Investigation.
"Learned Advocate for the accused submit that:
Lab
ay
o)
The information according to Ex.P.1 is on 08.01.2004.
O8.01.2004 is recorded at the right top portion, but tn the
opening sentence the date is recorded as OS8.04.2003.0 --
The case of the complainant iss-by the time ne inspected -
the flour mill he had credible miformation ¥ ith regard to
the thefi of power. So, "he sought the assistance of |
PW.2 who is an expert in meter testifg. So, PW.) and
2 vo to the flour mill
Q ; When they reached four mill, the
flour mill was not working. So. switched on the Hour
mill, find ti¥gsmeter ts moving slowly. In this situation
except. for, the diicial "witnesses, no independent
ot ;
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It
is not his submiasion that official witnesses' evidence
should. be thrown out in toto, but tt should be tested to
- find out truth, a reasonable man's approach in the facts
of the case, whal was the meter number reading when
rst visit is not spelt out, Then for how
~ lorig they have worked Nour mill is not spelt out.
~ELP. of Meter used for the Hour mill, specific time of
use ig not found. If this was fsund in the evidence
P.W.2, then there was some reason to find out that the
witnesses are speaking the truth. There being no such
evidence the prosecution case is created, {S probabatised,
d) To support the above contention, he submit + nat the *
complaint is registered in the morning cand he Mal nazar
conducted in the evening at 5. Wp pam. FL Re reacnes
the Magistrate by the next-day "au QG.3U am, Les, after'
the panchanama is recorded. PAR. reaches the
Magistrate is not int conser ance. with the principle of
Sec. 154 of Cr.P.C, U ader Sec: 154 ot 'f the Cr.P.C. the
PER. should reach the - Maisie early as possible.
If the PAR, is not reach ed the Magistrate within time,
there should be explanation. No such explanation is
forthcor VY, ae i. the facts of the case.
e}) ~"At.the genesis these unexplained events found in the
° facts of the case being reflected, appreciation of the
ev i dence by the learned Sessions Judge !s not proper.
-- f) Phe mandate u/S 151 of the electricity Act, 2003, is that,
spécified officers are authorized to file the complaint.
"No such authorisation or authority of P.W.1 1s proved.
No authorisation letter is also marked during the cours
fet
of the evidence. So, tested from any angie i is not a
ease which comes within the ambit of truthfulness the
case of the prosecution. 50, pray for ar order. ef
acquittal.
Learned Govt. Pleader, fon the othe! hand, while
supporting the judgment of the learned District Judge,
emphasizes the investigation is "by "the officers of the
department. Why the of ficers of | tne department has to find
oul, complain against the acouse: ms "ny not ethers im the
world. : Se. tested) A vith this ge ene ral yardstick the opinion
formed by the jeamed Sessions Judge that too when there is no
i will between the comp! 'inant and accused, is probabalised.
So, pray for an order of dismissal of the appeal.
§°. In-the light of the above, the point that arise tor
. "sonsideration is as under:
Whether the prosecution has proved the charges
levelled against the ace used.
&
6 PW.1 is the complainant. In the course af his
Ji 48
evidence he narrates receiving fhe complaint of-stealing, of
power, on credible information. [t is his f iriher ease (hat ne.
has recorded the complaint and the 'compiaint, is "Sent to
Magistrate, The inspection 1s done in between, 3.00.- 5.30 pane
he finds that there is theft "of
approximate loss in terms of morey-at <.38,458/- and then
submits it to. the Magistrate. This probabalises that entire
investigation is over, by the time complaint is filed. This
probabalises without any doubt that it is a one man's show. in
such 2 situation the Court should examine the version strictly
@ find out the truih as the one submitted by the learned
Advocate for the accused,
+ The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that he took
aseistance of P.W.2. PLW.2 ts an exper in meter examinutg.
Pp W.2 has found that there is a theft of electricity
the course of his evidence states he accompa nied the vigilance
squad on 08.01.2004, reached the flour mill of the accused al
5.00 p.m., the flour mill was not! running, he staried the our
mill by switching-on the current. ihe t ace ved aren
had a testing instrument by aecucs ic A, re ponnect "dt the.
machine to the circuit and checked the S for yeading, it
showed a slow recording 'of the meter. 30, he checked the
entire board, foune that the service wire was tapped and
directly conmes ied to: th iow er. side of the T.P. Switch. 50,
the mefer Ww as running sles why, 'He claims that he ts an expert
in meter "testing: then, he states about P.W.1 lodging the
.. complaint to the Vigilance Police.
af
gos Phe" narration of the materia! evidence of the
important witness that when he went along with P.W.2 flour
"mulbwas not working. At least a prudent man who } is deputed
to point out the working or otherwise of the clectricity meter
would recerd the recording of the meter when he visited for
Sonne
inspection, No such evidence is placed in the facts of the case.
oe
Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Adve oc! ate Tor the
much time the flour mill was. kept-.on, waat cavill be tne.
approximate power required torun the flour mill for that
particular period, what is the Gift erence in the meter reading.
Then the action kowhe could f hy ave heen accepted. Virtually
the important ingredien nits s-for the offence complained tested
with the ord nary man's appreach, is not found in the facts of
the case. "Added to ihe above, the panch witnesses relied by
PWS, arid P.Wol, have not supported the case of the
"OPeOSGeubion. |
QO, Coming to the impact of the F.LR. reaching the
is concerned, the law prescribes that if an Officer
should report the same to the concerned Magistrate. In the
mets of the ease, a reading of Ex.P.1 would shaw. that by
08.01.2004itself, information was there. Why. the sala. information is not conveyed tc > Magistrate -_ remains unexplained. So, submiiting of. the FALR. after the panchanama, would probabalise 'that. the BAR. wich claims to be an PLL. is not an PAR, but a'siatemen WS 162 Cr. P. C. So, an impe ta mi elem ent to move the law into motion is missing from the, facts oF the case. So, without even going to the other subject argued. by the learned Advocate for the accused on the see of the material facts narretedly PW, Tits elf, € Cou rt. holds that the action of P.W.i and 2 do
-- Ant 'come within the purview Of rustworthy witness. So, the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is lable to be set aside.
10. Appeal is allowed.
fi. fhe fine amount, if any. paid by the accused, directed to be paid back to the accused. bey