SRI VENKATESHA vs STATE

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57124
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010451652015




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1300 OF 2015 (C)



BETWEEN:

SRI. VENKATESHA
SON OF APPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VALLURU VILLAGE,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.
…APPELLANT







(BY SRI. UDAY KUMAR REDDY B. R., ADVOCATE AND
SRI. KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ABHINAY Y. T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE
BY VIGILANCE
BESCOM
TUMKURU - 572 101.
…RESPONDENT



Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 5.9.2015 PASSED BY THE I
ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., TUMKURU IN SPL.CASE NO.144/2012

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57124
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010451652015



AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED OF ALL THE
OFFENCES TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2015
passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur
in Special Case.No.144/2012.
2. The parties are referred to the same rank what they
had before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the
Inspector of Police, BESCOM Vigilance Cell Police Station,
Tumakuru, laid charge sheet against the accused, alleging the
offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,
2003 (for short 'the Act').

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57124
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010451652015



4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 17.08.2011
at about 1.00 p.m. complainant along with the Inspector of
Police inspected the flour mill belonging to the accused situated
in Vollur Village. During the inspection, they found the theft of
electrical energy of 7.380 units worth Rs.60,997/-, thereby
accused committed an offence under Section 135 of the Act.
5. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was
registered as Special Case No.144/2012. The accused appeared
before the Court. On hearing, the trial Court framed charges
against the accused for the alleged commission of the offence.
The charges were read over and explained to the accused in a
language known to him. Having understood the same, the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
examined three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and marked seven
documents as Exs.P1 to P7. Upon closure of the prosecution
evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313(1)
(b) of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied the
evidence of PWs.1 to 3. However, he did not choose to lead any
defence evidence.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57124
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010451652015



7. During the recording of the statement under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused admitted that he was
the owner of the flour mill. He further stated that he had
obtained a licence, but the same had not been renewed. He
also stated that, on 18.08.2014, he had received an electricity
bill for a sum of Rs.6,179/- and produced the same before the
Court. The said document and another document were marked
as Exs.D1 and D2, respectively.
8. Having heard the arguments advanced by both
sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 135 of the Act.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of
PWs.1 to 3 and the documents produced by the appellant. It is
contended that, according to the complainant, the accused did
not have a valid electricity connection after August 2011.
However, Ex.D2, the receipt dated 05.05.2011, clearly
discloses that a valid electricity connection existed.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57124
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010451652015



10. The learned counsel further submits that the
electricity connection obtained by the appellant, had been
disconnected. Therefore, in the absence of any material to
establish that the appellant was indeed running the flour mill as
on the date of the alleged raid, the impugned judgment is liable
to be set aside.
11. It is further contended that, during the cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses, they admitted that
the lineman is appointed for every area and that if their is any
unauthorised electricity connection, the same would be
reported by him. In the absence of any such report by the
lineman being placed on record, the trial Court erred in
convicting the appellant.
12. The learned counsel also contends that the Trial
Court erred in imposing the penalty by calculating the charges
on the basis of three times the billing amount for a period of 12
months. It is argued that the billing ought to have been
calculated from the date of removal of the meter from the
appellant's premises and not for any period earlier thereto. On
these grounds, the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57124
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010451652015



and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence.
13. As against this, the learned HCGP submits that the
trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in
accordance with facts of the case and seeks for dismissal of the
appeal.
14. Having heard the arguments advanced by both
sides and on perusal of the materials placed before me, the
following points arise for consideration:-
i. Whether the appellant has made out grounds to
interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the
trial Court?
ii. What order?
15. My finding on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative.
Point No.2 : As per the final order.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57124
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010451652015



Point No.1:
16. I have perused the materials placed on record. It is
the case of the prosecution that the accused, being the owner
of a flour mill situated at Vollur Village, committed theft of
electrical energy valued at Rs.60,997/-.
17. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
examined three witnesses, namely, PWs.1 to 3. PW.1, D.
Chowdappa, the Junior Engineer of BESCOM, deposed that, on
17.08.2011, the BESCOM Vigilance Cell took him to the shed
belonging to the accused, where the accused was running a
flour mill. Upon inspection, he found that the accused had
unauthorisedly tapped electricity from a fixed hole situated
beside the shed by using a 20-metre, four-core wire. He further
deposed that he disconnected the unauthorised connection with
the assistance of the lineman, and prepared the mahazar,
which was marked as Ex.P1. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint
with the BESCOM Vigilance Cell Police Station.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57124
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010451652015



18. PW-2 - B.Narasimhappa, the Secretary of
Mangalawada Grama Panchayath, has stated regarding the
issuance of Ex.P5.
19. PW.3, B. Umashankar, deposed regarding the
investigation conducted by him.
20. During the recording of his statement under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused admitted
that he was the owner of the flour mill. However, he denied the
allegation of theft of electrical energy as alleged by the
prosecution.
21. During the cross-examination of PW.1, certain
documents marked as Exs.D1 and D2 were referred to Ex.D2,
which was admitted by PW.1, reveals that the accused had paid
a sum of Rs.3,000/- on 05.11.2011.
22. The mahazar dated 17.08.2011, marked as Ex.P1,
reveals that electricity connection had been disconnected.
However, the Investigating Officer did not examine the meter
board. It is also admitted that the accused was not present at
the spot at the time of inspection.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57124
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010451652015



23. The prosecution witnesses admitted that a lineman
was appointed to supervise the electricity connections provided
by BESCOM. However, the said lineman was not examined
before the Court. The concerned lineman has not reported to
the concerned authority as to the alleged unauthorized
connection or the electricity connection obtained to the flour
mill.
24. Ex.D3 reveals that the accused had obtained a
licence from the Gram Panchayat for the period from
27.09.1996 to 31.03.1997, which was not renewed thereafter.
25. The Investigating Officer has not explained from
which date the accused allegedly obtained an unauthorised
electricity connection from the electric pole up to the date of
inspection, i.e., 17.08.2011. To substantiate the case of the
prosecution, the evidence of official witnesses PWs 1 to 3 has
not been substantiated by any independent witnesses.
26. The Investigating Officer has mechanically and
casually submitted the charge sheet against the accused which
is not sustainable under law. The trial Court has failed to

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57124
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010451652015



appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and
facts. Since the prosecution has not placed sufficient material
on record to convict the accused, I answer point No. 1 in the
Affirmative.
27. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
allowed
i. The appeal is .
ii. The judgment of conviction order of sentence
dated 05.09.2015 passed by the I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Special Case
No.144/2012 is set aside.
iii. The appellant is acquitted for the offence under
Section 135 of the Act.
iv. The bail bond executed by the accused shall
stand cancelled.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57124
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2015


CNR: KAHC010451652015



v. The trial Court is directed to refund the fine
amount deposited by the appellant.
vi. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment along with trial Court records, to the trial
Court.


Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE







VMB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12