Karnataka HC Acquits Flour-Mill Owner Of Power Theft, Citing Uncorroborated Evidence And No Proof Of When The Unauthorized Connection Began

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant had established grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.

The court held

The High Court answered the issue of interference in the affirmative, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

It also directed

It cancelled the bail bond, directed the trial court to refund the fine deposited, and directed transmission of the judgment and trial court records.

01Facts

BESCOM alleged that, during an inspection of the appellant’s flour mill on 17 August 2011, officials found an unauthorised electricity connection and theft of electricity valued at ₹60,997; the appellant was charged under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶ 3–4 · p. 3

The trial court convicted him in Special Case No. 144/2012.

¶ 5–8 · pp. 3–4

In appeal, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the calculation of charges.

¶ 9–12 · pp. 4–6

He admitted owning the flour mill but denied theft.

¶ 7, 20 · p. 4, 8

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant had established grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.

¶ 14 · p. 6

ii.Whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently established the appellant’s guilt under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶ 16–26 · pp. 7–10

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for an appeal against a conviction.

p. 2

The alleged offence was under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, concerning theft of electricity.

¶ 3–4 · p. 3

The Court assessed whether the prosecution evidence and materials on record adequately supported the conviction.

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 374 Section 313

Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135

04Reasoning

The Court found gaps in the prosecution case: the Investigating Officer had not examined the meter board, the appellant was absent during the inspection, and the lineman responsible for supervising connections was not examined.

¶ 22–23 · p. 8

The prosecution also did not establish when the alleged unauthorised connection began, and the official witnesses’ evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses.

¶ 25 · p. 9

In the Court’s view, these deficiencies left insufficient material to sustain the conviction; the trial court had therefore failed to properly assess the evidence.

¶ 26 · p. 10