Judgment :- This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by A.2 in C.C.No: 165/2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vellore-III, who was convicted for offences under Section 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/= for each count, which has been confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vellore in C.A.No: 82 of 2003, dated 29. 2004. 2. The brief facts which lead to the filing of this Revision Case are as follows:- (a) The revision petitioner herein was running a business establishment under the name of "Leo Industrial Company" at Virudhambattu with the Electricity Service Connection No.84, falling within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Gandhi Nagar. He was manufacturing Polythene Bags on commercial basis. On a tip off from a reliable source, P.W.2 Nataraj, the Assistant Engineer, and the members of the Anti Power Theft Squad visited the said premises along with P.W.1 Selvaraj, Assistant Engineer, P.W.3, Anandan, Wireman, P.W.4, Gunaseelan, the Junior Engineer. They found that thought the Industrial Unit was running with full power, the electricity meter did not record consumption of electricity and the disc was not rotating. On further investigation, they also found out that two main switches were used at different places to allow the motor and units to run. But the meter only measured the consumption of electricity when one main switch was switched on. The Squad also found the power supply received from the electric post got entry into the building through a PVC pipe which got a secret hole even prior to its destination of meter. Through the secret hole, rubber insulation found on the wire were peeled off so as to facilitate the insertion of three wires for three phases and one wire for neutral got embedded in the insulated wires to carry the power supply to the secret main switch The entire concealed evil design came to light when the squad removed the cement patches from the rims of the Parapet wall. Based on the above, Ex.P.1 complaint was lodged. On receipt of the complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.119/99 under Sections 244, 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act and visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough sketch in Ex.P.7. Based on the above, Ex.P.1 complaint was lodged. On receipt of the complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.119/99 under Sections 244, 39(1) and 44(1)(c) of the Indian Electricity Act and visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough sketch in Ex.P.7. He enquired witnesses and recorded their statements besides recovering the M.Os 1 to 4 such as fuse carrier, pipe with wires, two meters and main switch with wires etc., A Photographer was also engaged who took snaps to depict the method of illegal abstraction of power done by the accused. After completing investigation, a final report was filed against the two accused for the offences as stated earlier. (b) Before the Judicial Magistrate, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked besides marking M.Os. 1 to 6. The accused did not chose to be examined. However, they marked Ex.D.1 and 2. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they denied the same as false. (c). On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the charges against the accused are proved and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Against the same, the accused preferred appeal in C.A.No. 82 of 2003 before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, who also confirmed the same. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been preferred by A.2. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that all the witnesses are either TNEB officials or Police Officials and P.W.7 turned hostile and therefore the their testimony cannot be relied on. Though the prosecution case is that two switches were used, but only one switch was recovered and marked as MO.4 and even the prosecution witnesses admit that they cannot be sure whether it is M0.4 which has been used for such illegal extraction of electricity supply. Further such a device for alleged illegal energy theft cannot be possible as such means would have attracted either the attention of the lineman or meter reading staff at their regular interval visits. Further, the accused was not present at the time of inspection and no statement was recorded from him. 3. Further such a device for alleged illegal energy theft cannot be possible as such means would have attracted either the attention of the lineman or meter reading staff at their regular interval visits. Further, the accused was not present at the time of inspection and no statement was recorded from him. 3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that it is only the first accused owns the premises and the second accused, Revision petitioner is only a lessee under him. Further the calculation of loss of energy at Rs.10 lakhs is impossible since the factory did not run for three shifts and the Revision petitioner had not engaged any other person. Further no document was seized to prove that such orders were received to that effect like invoice book, account books etc., Even the photographs would show that it is only a cottage industry and it would not have consumed electrical units to the value of Rs.10 lakhs. It is also submitted the first accused Sankar, the alleged owner of the Industrial Unit was let off in the separate appeal preferred by him before the Sessions Court, Vellore. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that when the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the second accused is entitled for discharge of the offences or at least he must be released invoking the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. .4. A perusal of the appellate court order would reveal that though there is contradiction between the prosecution witnesses regarding the time of inspection, all of them have consistently and uniformly spoken about how the power carrying cables from the electrical post reached a main switch kept in a concealed way taking a short circuit route on the way of its journey by making a hole on the pipe which carried the cables and took away the connection by inserting three cables for three phases and one cable for transmission of neutral. In the absence of any allegation of prejudice shown by the accused, the oral evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 need not be doubted classifying them as interested witnesses. 5. The very presence of artificial means for illegal theft of electrical energy would prima facie establish the modus of abstraction done by the accused. In the absence of any allegation of prejudice shown by the accused, the oral evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 need not be doubted classifying them as interested witnesses. 5. The very presence of artificial means for illegal theft of electrical energy would prima facie establish the modus of abstraction done by the accused. The trial court has on a detailed discussion and extracting the very admissions portions of the accused came to the conclusion that the offences are proved. Therefore the non seizure of another switch and also the cement plastering need not be a factor to be taken in support of the defence case. The evidence of P.W.5 Photographer would strengthen the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4. 6. Though it is alleged that the prosecution has not proved the nexus between the first and second accused, it to be seen that the second accused has kept silent in the trial stage and did not choose to give any evidence in that regard. Therefore, the acquittal of the owner of the Industrial Unit will not be helpful to the second accused, who is a lessee of the premises from where only the illegal extraction of electrical energy took place and the M.Os have been seized. As rightly held by the appellate court the non registration of the lease deed for more than 11 months would invite a separate legal complication, but it would not alter the status of the parties to the deed. .7. Though it is alleged that the estimated loss of electrical energy is on the higher side at Rs.10,00,000/=, it is to be remembered that the second accused has not even chosen to let in any oral evidence or produced any invoice or account books to show that there was no such bulk orders or manufacturing activities carried on in the factory. Even accepting that he was not responsible for such illegal device used for theft of energy, then he could have very well either removed the second main switch or he could have informed the TNEB officials against the first accused, who is the owner of the premises, if he was put in to the leased premises with such a device. Even accepting that he was not responsible for such illegal device used for theft of energy, then he could have very well either removed the second main switch or he could have informed the TNEB officials against the first accused, who is the owner of the premises, if he was put in to the leased premises with such a device. The silence before the trial court and taking different stand before the appellate4 court would only go to show that there was some collusion between A.1 and A.2 in tapping the electrical energy illegally. Having regard to such conduct, I do not find it a fit case to show lenience the accused by invoking the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act, since theft of electrical energy involves huge investment of public money in generating electrical power and it affects the economy also. 8. In the result, this Revision is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellate court. The trial court is directed to secure the accused and send him to prison to undergo the period of sentence. Consequently, bail bond if any executed by himself shall stand cancelled.