JUDGMENT H.G. RAMESH, J.—Appeal is by the accused against the order of the Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Kolar in EACC 36/2008 convicting and sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 80,000/- for the alleged offence under Section 135(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 2. According to the prosecution, accused is a resident of Manighatta village of Kolar Taluk. Prior to 6.5.2004 as there was default on the part of the accused in not making payment of electricity charges, there was disconnection of supply of electricity after removal of the meter board. It is alleged, on 6.5.2004 around 11.30 a.m., when the Vigilance Squad of BESCOM inspected the flour mill belonging to the accused, it was found the accused had abstracted electricity from the main line by connecting four wires and thereby, committed theft of electricity to the tune of Rs. 38,590/- on the basis of which, crime was registered and, after investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. According to the appellant, there was civil, dispute among the brothers after the death of his father and this appellant has not exercised his right to run the flour mill rather, he himself has intimated to disconnect the electricity supply to the flour mill. It is also his case that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond doubt to the effect that the accused was running the flour mill and accordingly, sought for acquittal of the accused. 4. Per contra, government pleader submitted, in the cross-examination, accused admitted that he had been paying the electricity charges even prior to the alleged incident and his admission in the cross-examination itself depicts the fact that he is the person in charge and running the flour mill in the family and to escape liability, he has come out with a defence that there is a civil dispute and it is not the appellant who is running the flour mill, which is untenable. 5. In the light of the arguments advanced, the points that arise for consideration are: “Whether the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant that he is the person who was looking after the flour mill, and has illegally abstracted electricity from the main line and thus, committed the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. What offence if any, is committed by the appellant and, what order. 6. What offence if any, is committed by the appellant and, what order. 6. There is specific evidence on record of one Devireddy, who is the Assistant Executive Engineer and he has spoken about the inspection being done on the premises belonging to the accused and found that there is abstraction of electricity illegally from the main line by connecting four wires and he was running a motor having capacity of 7.5 HP and also using 60 watt bulb. After recovering the wires which were used for connecting under panchanama, complaint is filed. 7. It is also the specific case of the accused that the father of this accused one Konda Reddy had sold the flour mill to some third person, and it is not in his possession. The trial Court, having noted such defence, having found that no such document has been produced by the accused to stand by his contention and also he did not examine the person who has purchased and was running the flour mill and if at all the defence of the accused is that it is sold to one Krishna, what made him not to examine the said Krishna, opined that the property was not sold by the father of the accused in favour of a third person. Based on the evidence of the complainant, and also having noted that the rice mill was still standing in the name of Konda Reddy, father of the accused and said Konda Reddy had died and also having noted apart from this case, the accused is said to have committed mischief in drawing electricity connection illegally and abstracted electricity for which he was prosecuted earlier, and that the accused was running the flour mill even after the death of his father and also there was evidence to show that the electricity connection which was given to the flour mill was though withdrawn, on inspection it was detected that illegal electricity was abstracted directly from the pole and that the previous bills/arrears for having consumed electricity has not been paid, the trial Judge has held that electricity was drawn directly from the pole despite disconnection of electricity. 8. The argument of the counsel for the accused is that there is a dispute between the brothers. 8. The argument of the counsel for the accused is that there is a dispute between the brothers. However, it is seen, no such suggestion was made to the effect that it is not he, rather, it is his brother or relatives who are looking after and no evidence is let in in his defence. In the context, rightly the trial Court has convicted the accused. 9. However, so far as sentencing is concerned, though the trial Court has taken a view based on the admission that similar defaults were made in not paying the arrears, having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is hereby ordered that accused shall pay an amount of Rs. 38,590/- in stead of Rs. 80,000/- as ordered by the trial Court. The amount shall be paid within three months failing which, the appellant has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It is submitted, already there is a deposit of Rs. 80,000/- as ordered by the trial Court. Out of Rs. 80,000/- which is in deposit, an amount of Rs. 38,590/- shall be deducted and rest of the amount be returned to the appellant. 10. Appeal is allowed in part.