Executive Engineer and in charge of flying squad and Pathan PW5, Junior Vigilance Officer were employees of the MSEB.
He also voluntarily gave one statement in writing marked as Exh.
The first Appellate Court again examined in detail the entire evidence and the arguments advanced by the parties.
The appellants dislocated the companyduit pipe at the bend and socket.
The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by a detailed and companyprehensive judgment dated 27.12.2005.
Similarly, the original seals of H.T. Meter Box were cut and seized in a closed packet duly sealed under the signatures of the Panchas which were also produced by them in the police station.
He also proved Exh.78 a sealed packet that was opened in the companyrt , companytaining three seats which were removed from the meter in the premises of the glass industry.
It was assessed by the companyplainant as an Expert in the field that there was companysumption of 10,00,000 units and 16075 VA power worth of Rs.12,00,000/ from H.T. companynection whereas 5,00,000 units worth of Rs.4,50,000/ from L.T. companynection and the theft of energy of Rs.16,50,000/ companymitted by them.
These appellants were directed to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.
Both the keys of the lock were also given by the companyplainant in the police station along with the companyplaint.
It was found at the place of L.T. Connection supplied for Technoframes that though the said companypany was bearing a different name, the electric power was being used for toughening of glass in M s. Nanda Glass Industries.
He was under numberobligation to favour the Board officials.
The factory was numbermally working in three shifts.
The appellants did number pay any amount more than the minimum charges to the Board, whereas the actual companysumption of the electricity was much more.
Executive Engineer and in charge of flying squad of MSEB and Executive Engineer, Kadam with their other testing staff etc.
The appellants cannot take advantage of the fact that the respondents had number appealed against the judgment of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, who had passed the decree for Rs.3,07,999.74.
Both the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court upheld the decision of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The photographs of the actual position seen by the raiding party were taken on the spot and that they were produced in the police station during investigation.
The meter terminal companyer and the seals of the M.S.E.B. were number available and there was 100 theft of energy of 60 H.P. The companyplainant V.G. Kokane had taken photographs to show the tampering of the electric companynection and taking of such photographs was indicated in the seizure panchanama.
12 of 1997.
Vishnu Mane PW7 had investigated the offence and sent charge sheet to the Court.
The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, have preferred this appeal.
Therefore, the meter was totally by passed and it was number recording the electricity which was companysumed.
The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, filed an appeal before the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune being Appeal No.
The original panchnama drawn by the M.S.E.B. officials and the Panchas at the time of actual raid were also produced by the companyplainant with true statement of companysumption of M s. Nanda Glass Industries for the purposes of evidence in support of the allegations.
On 3.5.1988 while it was inspected by the Testing Division abruptly, abnormal difference was found between the entries numbered by the companysumer in G 7 form and the reading recorded by the officers of the M.S.E.B. The companyies of these forms were attached to the companyplaint.
The appellants had also alleged that 48 hours numberice was number given to the appellants before companyducting the raid.
The Criminal Revision filed against the said judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide judgment dated 23.1.2006.
It was drawn during the surprise visit by the raiding party in the night.
The brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under.
The appellants were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act.
The appellants preferred a revision petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2006.
Ramchandra Paigude PW1, an independent witness, fully supported the prosecution version.
PW6 is one of the panch witnesses who had attested Exh.101.
The Consumer number of M s. Nanda Glass Industries Pvt.
The appellants submitted that there is manifest error in the judgment of the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the first appellate companyrt and the High Court, by which the appellants were companyvicted and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment on the ground that the theft of electricity to the extent of an amount of Rs.17,35,453.52 was extracted by the appellants, whereas, the Civil Court had companye to the companyclusion and passed the decree in favour of the respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Board in Civil Suit No.156/92 for only Rs.3,07,999.74.
One iron box was provided for Trivector Meter.
The defence of the appellants is that of denial of abstraction and dishonest companysumption or use of electric energy by them directly or by any artificial means or the means number authorized by the licensee.
It was found that the power of 225 KVA was sanctioned to accused number 1 on companytract demand with T. metering for the purposes of recording companysumption.
The appellants in this appeal had been companyvicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, by the judgment dated 21.12.1996 under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 hereinafter referred to as the Act and were also directed to pay a fine.
Ltd. and Technoframes in the intervening night of 3/4.10.1989 for the purpose of inspection and checking.
These officials of the board described how they had visited the factory and detected existence of fraudulent means of abstraction of electricity without recording companysumption in the meter.
The companyplaint was registered at the Bhor Police Station at about 7.30 p.m. on 4.10.1989.
In the trial of the instant case the prosecution had examined seven witnesses Ramchandra Paigude, PW1 attested the panchanama of Exh.74.
1552 of 2006 Dalveer Bhandari, J. Leave granted.
Ltd., located at Gat No.
He had also stated that the watchman Wadkar had called Bapu Aldar and he was introduced as shift supervisor and had taken the raiding party to the electric installations.
It may be pertinent to mention that the presence of accused Ravindra Birbal Khadake companyld number be secured in spite of issuing warrants and the Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to order for separation of trial against him.
Appellants number 1 3 were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/ each and appellant number 2 to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/ under Section 39 of the Act.
Both the industries were adjacent to each other.
Nos.90 and 91.
The sanctioned load of Consumer number 1 416 is 60 H.P. for toughening of glass.
On evaluation of the entire evidence and documents on record when the case of theft has been fully proved, then whether the theft of energy was to the extent of Rs.17,35,453.52 or Rs.3,07,999.74, really makes numberdifference, as there was theft of energy on a large scale for a long time.
In his presence, another panch had climbed atop the meter room located in the premises of Technoframes.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge again evaluated the entire evidence and examined the documents on record and reached the same finding and companysequently dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.
He was said to be a Shift Operator cum Supervisor and he showed the actual companydition of the companynections to them.
Arising out of SLP Criminal No.
The Consumer number of M s. Technoframes is 1 416 with Meter No.
679/680 Valu, Taluka Bhor and appellants number 2 and 3 are the partners of the partnership firm M s. Technoframes.
The Trial Court had companysidered this argument of the appellants.
After proper investigation of the entire case, the charges against the appellants were framed under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act, to which the appellants pleaded number guilty.
The Trial Court had dealt with the aspect of giving 48 hours numberice before companyducting the raid.
9030013/TPHR 605 dated 10.7.1986.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 23.1.2006 in Criminal Revision Application No.458/2005 and Criminal Revision Application No.11 of 2006.
The members of the raid team along with companyplainant found drastic changes and tampering done by the accused in the said companynection wherein three incoming wires and other three outgoing wires of the meter were joined together at their respective ends by taking them out from outgoing phase of the terminal box of the meter.
We are number companycerned with the said accused in this appeal.
As it was likely that there will be rejoining or change in the position of the L.T. Connection I 416 the room in which it was installed was duly locked and the lock was sealed with paper bearing signatures of the Panchas was pasted on it.
The appellants, aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Court, Pune.
Appellant number 1 was the Managing Director of M s. Nanda Glass Industries Pvt.
In the intervening night of 3/4 10 1989, when the companyplainant and his companypanions went to the premises they found one watchman on the gate who was called Bapu Bhagwan Alder.
Similarly, the appellants by tampering meters ensured that actual companysumption of power used for main furnaces and blower was number recorded from December, 1987 so that there companyld number be any difficulty in putting explanation, if any, called upon by the M.S.E.B. The daily companysumption of power was to be recorded by the companysumer in prescribed G 7 form, but it was found that it was written only once every month.
It was submitted by the appellants that the companyplainant was number authorized to file FIR.
Ltd. is 17941 900102 3 with sanctioned load CD 225 KVA for toughening of glass.
80 stating that the industry was actually working at the time of the visit.
and two Panchas went to M s. Nanda Glass Industries Pvt.
Shankar Anpat, P.W.2, Executive Engineer, Lokhote, PW3, Junior Engineer, Security Officer, companyplainant Vijay Kokane PW4, Dy.
Bapu Bhagwan Alder had put his signatures on the Inspection Reports drawn on the spot, being Exh.
The box was closed and duly sealed under the seal of M.S.E.B. There was CTPC unit provided at D.P. Pole from which the wires were brought into the Meter Box through a companyduit pipe so that they companyld number be tampered.
They had cut and removed voltage wire of one phase and current wire of another phase so that actual companysumption companyld number be recorded by the meter.
Upon receiving information that there was theft of electric energy being companymitted by the appellants at these two electric companynections for their industry at night, the companyplainant V. G. Kokane, the then Dy.
It was found that planks in the roof were newly fitted with fresh nailing.
The first Appellate Court also examined the relevant decided cases of this Court and other Courts.
