Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3(v) The Trial Court has erred in holding that the meter seals and other seals were intact at the time of test report and therefore the theft would not have been committed. The intermediate period of 5 days was available to the accused to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis commit theft and therefore, the trial court, due to non- application of mind, has acquitted the accused. 3(vi) The Trial Court has erred in taking up the date and fact of test report, since test report has nothing to do with checking up the meter and its seals. Seals will be checked once in a year by an expert body namely “Meter Relay Test” (MRT) and it is a separate wing. Since MRT is an expert body, the other officials are not duty bound to check the meter seals and meter. Therefore mixing up of two different issues is an error. 3(vii) The Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the procedure has been followed and erred in holding that the procedure has not been followed.

16. PW2 also in his cross examination stated that on 15.03.2002, the same Service Connection meter was inspected and test report was also given by the Superintending Engineer. As per the report dated 15.03.2002, the meter was functioning and no fault was found in the meter and further in the said report, it was stated that there is no chance for electricity theft Further he stated that he does not know who was the custodian of the seals for the security box on the date of inspection. Further he admitted that there was a check meter fixed by the Electricity Board outside the premises. Through that check meter, they can compare the meter reading with the meter affixed inside the premises ie., the disputed meter and also he admitted that on the date of inspection, both the readings are one and the same and there is no difference in the meter readings and also admitted that in the check meter, the seal was intact and further he admitted that on the date of inspection, the meter was functioning and there was no symptom https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis for energy theft”. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 reveals that the meter was functioning on the date of occurrence and there is no chance for committing theft of energy.

18. Further PW3, himself has also admitted that the meter was functioning on the date of occurrence and there was no any other materials affixed in the meter and further he has perused the Consumption Register, but he has not noticed any difference there. Further, PW5, who was the wireman, has also stated in his evidence that on 21.06.1999, as per the direction of the Assistant Executive Engineer, he went to the place of occurrence and inspected the meter. At that time, he replaced the old meter and fixed the new meter. Further he has stated in his evidence that in the above said Ice Factory, a check meter was also installed outside the company and the check meter was under the custody of the Electricity Board and another meter was under the custody of the consumer. If any malpractice made in the meter affixed inside the company, the same would be seen from the check meter which was affixed outside the company. Therefore, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is crystal clear that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis PW3, without any prior intimation to the local authorities, went to the place of occurrence and in the absence of his other officials, broken the seal, thereby the conduct of PW3 creates a serious doubt over the prosecution case.

19. Further already there was a dispute between the accused and PW3 with regard to the demand of bribe and other prosecution witnesses also categorically stated that there was no chance for committing theft of energy since the meter was inspected one week prior to the date of occurrence. Further the Superintending Engineer, Tuticorin Electricity Distribution Circle, Tuticorin also gave an Inspection Report, which is marked as Ex.D.3 and in that report also, it is clearly observed that there is no chance for electricity theft. Further there is no evidence that how the authorities arrived the units of that as alleged by the proseuction. As per the evidence of prosecution, check meter was fixed outside the Ice Factory. The very purpose of installing the check meter is to find out differences, but no variation between the check meter and the meter fixed in the Factory. While so, for what purpose the seals were broken and without any variations in the meter readings, how the prosecution arrived the calculation, has to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis explained by the prosecution, but no any explanation to that regard. Further the Ex.P.1 report reveals that after breaking the seals, the meter readings were reduced, if so how the report was prepared without any materials to show that the meter was tampered. The Ex.P.1 report is contra to the prosecution evidence. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled as against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the trial court has also, in its judgment, elaborately discussed about the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documents produced on both sides and correctly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled as against the accused under Section 135(1)(b) of Indian Electricity Act and thereby, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court warranting interference.