Karnataka High Court
Ravikumar @ Ravi vs State By Madhugiri Police on 30 October, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:38289
CRL.A No. 333 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 363 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2012
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 363 OF 2012
IN CRL.A. NO.333/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SYED FAROOQ PASHA
S/O SYED MAQBOOL,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/A GOPALPURAM
BEHIND MINERVA MILLS
MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE.
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. A S KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
signed by
SUMITHRA R AND:
Location:
High Court of
1. STATE BY MADHUGIRI POLICE STATION
Karnataka
DISTRICT:TUMKUR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.01.2012 PASSED
BY THE I - ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR
IN SPECIAL C.NO.69/2006 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 IS P/U/S.136 AND 137 OF
ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:38289
CRL.A No. 333 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 363 of 2012
IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR ONE YEAR AND TO PAY
A FINE OF RS.3,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE AMOUNT,
TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S.136 AND 137 OF ELECTRICITY ACT.
IN CRL.A. NO.363/2012
BETWEEN:
1. RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI
S/O SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
GANIGARU BY CASTE,
R/O CHIKKONAHALLI,
KOPPA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. M R VANAJA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY MADHUGIRI
POLICE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED:28.1.12
PASSED BY THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMKUR IN SPL.C.NO.69/06 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.136 AND
137 OF ELECTRICITY ACT 2003.THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.3 SENTENCED TO UNDER GO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT
FOR ONE YEAR AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.3,000/- AND IN
DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT TO UNDER GO RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/SEC.136 AND 137 OF ELECTRICITY ACT.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:38289
CRL.A No. 333 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 363 of 2012
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are preferred by accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2012 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Special.C No.69/2006.
2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 136 and 137 of Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo R.I. for six months. The trial Court has acquitted accused No.1 of the charged offences, observing that there is nothing on record with regard to the role played by the said accused and the prosecution has not brought home its case against him.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:38289 CRL.A No. 333 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 363 of 2012
3. Criminal Appeal No.363/2012 is preferred by accused No.3 and Criminal Appeal No.333/2012 is preferred by accused No.4.
4. It is the case of prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 3 committed theft of 10,040 meters of aluminum and copper wires belonging to BESCOM valued at Rs.27,706/-, during night hours on 20.11.2005 in Kithagahalli and Karpehalli of Madhugiri Taluk and then sold it to accused No.4, who purchased it knowing it to be stolen property and then melted and converted into aluminum and copper ingots and thereby the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 136 and 137 of Electricity Act, 2003.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for accused/appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and perused the material on record.
6. The complainant is a Junior Engineer of BESCOM, Badavana Halli, Madhugiri Taluk. He is examined -5- NC: 2023:KHC:38289 CRL.A No. 333 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 363 of 2012 as PW.1. The complaint is marked as Ex.P1. The complaint was lodged on 30.11.2005, on the basis of which PW.9 - PSI of Madhugiri Police Station registered a case against unknown persons under Section 379 of IPC and issued the FIR - Ex.P13 to the jurisdictional Court. As per Ex.P1, there was theft of aluminum and copper wires from different places in Kithagahalli Village and Karpehalli Village, during night hours of 20.11.2005, i.e., about ten days prior to the lodging of the complaint.
7. PW.1 has deposed about lodging of Ex.P1 and conducting mahazars as per Exs.P2 to P7. He has stated that at five places, aluminum and copper wires were stolen. He has further stated that after lodging of the complaint, madhugiri police showed 123 aluminum ingots and 38 copper ingots marked as MOs.1 and 2. In the cross-examination he has denied of having lodged a false complaint.
8. The prosecution has got examined PWs.2 to 7, the owners of the land from where the theft of copper and -6- NC: 2023:KHC:38289 CRL.A No. 333 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 363 of 2012 aluminum wires have taken place. PWs.4 to 6 and 7 have been treated hostile by the prosecution. PWs.2 and 3 have stated that the wires were stolen from the poles erected in their lands. The evidence of PWs.2 to 7 goes to show that there was theft of aluminum and copper wires and they had lodged complaints in this regard. Further, PW.2 has identified his signatures on Ex.P2 to P6 namely the spot mahazars which were drawn on 01.12.2005.
9. PW.8 is the police constable who apprehended accused Nos.2 and 3 and produced before PW.9 on 06.05.2005. He has sated that the said accused led the police and panchas to the shop of one Amanulla wherein accused No.4 was present and at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3, accused No.4 produced the aluminum and copper ingots which are said to have been sold to him about fifteen days prior. He has stated that they recovered 123 aluminum ingots and 38 copper ingots under a mahazar Ex.P12.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:38289 CRL.A No. 333 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 363 of 2012
10. PW.9 namely the investigation Officer has deposed about the arrest of accused Nos.2 and 3 on 06.12.2015 and recording of their voluntary statements as per Exs.P14 and 15. He has deposed about accused Nos.2 and 3 leading the police and panchas to the scrap shop wherein accused No.4 produced 123 aluminum ingots and 38 copper ingots which were seized under a mahazar - Ex.P12 in the presence of panch witnesses PWs.10 and 11.
11. From the above material on record, it can be seen that there was theft of copper and aluminum wires from the electric poles prior to 30.11.2005 and on the complaints of the land owners. PW.1 lodged a complaint on the basis of which the police registered a case against unknown persons for an offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and investigation was taken up. On 01.12.2005, spot mahazars as per Ex.P2 to P7 were drawn. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are said to be apprehended on 06.12.2005 and their voluntary statements as per Exs.P14 and 15 were recorded. However, it is not -8- NC: 2023:KHC:38289 CRL.A No. 333 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 363 of 2012 forthcoming from the evidence of PWs.8 and 9 as to on what basis the said accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested. According to the police, after the arrest the accused gave their voluntary statements and they led the police to the scrap shop of one Amanulla, wherein accused No.4 - Syed Fairoz was present. PWs.8 namely the police constable and PW.9 - PSI who registered the case have stated that from the said accused No.4, 123 aluminum ingots and 38 copper ingots were recovered. On the ground that he has received the aluminum and copper wires belonging to BESCOM from accused Nos.2 and 3, knowing fully well that they are stolen property, he has been arraigned as an accused. What is relevant to be seen is that there is no material placed by the prosecution to show that the said accused No.4 received aluminum and copper wires belonging to BESCOM from accused Nos.2 and 3. Admittedly, what is recovered from accused No.4 is the copper and aluminum ingots. There is no material to show that the said copper and aluminum ingots were belonging to BESCOM. Merely because the copper and aluminum -9- NC: 2023:KHC:38289 CRL.A No. 333 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 363 of 2012 ingots were recovered from accused No.4 on that basis itself, it cannot be held that they are the melted copper and aluminum wires which were stolen from the electric poles at different places, prior to 30.11.2005.
12. PW.9 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not mentioned the date in the voluntary statements of the accused and no records of the shop of accused No.4 was collected. He has further stated that accused No.4 has not given any bill to accused Nos.2 and 3 for having sold the stolen property and accused No.4 has not maintained any book of accounts. According to the prosecution, under Ex.P12 about 69 aluminum ingots weighing about 100 kgs 100 grams which was sold to accused No.4 about 1 ½ months prior, which were stolen in connection with Crime No.186/2005 and another 3 plastic bags containing 123 aluminum ingots weighing about 180 kgs and 2 bags containing 38 copper ingots weighing about 200 kgs which is the subject matter were recovered. Neither PW.8 nor PW.9 have mentioned about
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:38289 CRL.A No. 333 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 363 of 2012 the weight of the copper and aluminum ingots recovered from accused No.4 in connection with the case on hand. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the weight of the copper and aluminum ingots which are recovered from accused No.4 and the weight of the copper and aluminum wires which were stolen from the electric poles belonging to BESCOM are same. Further, PWs.10 and 11 the panch witnesses to Ex.P12 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against the accused/appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has failed to take into consideration the above aspects which are discussed by this Court. The reasons assigned by the trial Court for convicting the accused for the charged offences are therefore, not in accordance with law. The accused are accordingly liable to be acquitted. Hence, the following:
ORDER Appeals are allowed.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:38289 CRL.A No. 333 of 2012 C/W CRL.A No. 363 of 2012 The judgment and order dated 28.01.2012 passed by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Special.C No.69/2006 convicting and sentencing the appellants/accused Nos.3 and 4 is hereby set aside.
The accused are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 136 and 137 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19