Judgment ( 1 ) THE petitioner established an industry by name,m/s Srinivasa Metal industries at Thadithota,rajahmundry. The industry is supplied power through two separate connections. The factory premises were inspected on 12. 6. 2001 by the officials of the A. P. Eastern Power Distribution company Limited and its Vigilance Cell. While one meter was found to be intact, in the other meter, bearing No. 7513185, one, out of the 4 seals, was said to have been tampered. An inspection report was prepared; the petitioner was arrested, and the meter was sent for analysis to the MRT lab,bommur. The meter and the seals were tested on 13. 6. 2001 and a report was submitted. On the basis of the same, the superintending Engineer, Assessments, visakhapatnam,issued proceedings dated 1. 10. 2001, holding that the petitioner has pilfered energy, valued at Rs. 6,63,781/ -. ( 2 ) SIMULTANEOUSLY proceedings were initiated before the Special Court under the indian Electricity (A. P. Amendment) Act, 2000. The case was tried as E. S. C. No. 6 of 2002. Through its judgment dated 30. 1. 2003, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 49 of the Indian Electricity Act and imposed the sentence of two years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also held guilty of the offence under Section 44 of the Act and punishment of rigorous imprisonment for two years was imposed for that. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 3 ) ON civil aspect, the Special Court affirmed the amount levied by the superintending Engineer, Assessment Circle. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Court. ( 4 ) THE petitioner contends that the inspection itself was conducted contrary to the prescribed procedure and no independent witnesses were drawn, as required under Rule 238 of the A. P. ! electricity Department Manual. It is further alleged that a clear discrepancy as to the identity of the seals and meter was pointed out by the laboratory and the same was not at all taken into account by the tribunal. ( 5 ) THE respondents filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. electricity Department Manual. It is further alleged that a clear discrepancy as to the identity of the seals and meter was pointed out by the laboratory and the same was not at all taken into account by the tribunal. ( 5 ) THE respondents filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. According to them, it is not mandatory that an independent witness is arranged at the time of inspection and the mere fact that such a witness was not present, does not vitiate the proceedings. It is also stated that the discrepancy as to the numbers of meters and seals was adequately explained by the witness examined on its behalf. ( 6 ) SRI P. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the special Court ignored two vital aspects, namely the procedure to be followed at the time of causing inspection and the discrepancies that emerged in the course of test of the meters by the laboratory. He contends that, as in any other criminal cases, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the petitioner and the Special court has endeavoured to explain the vital discrepancies. Learned Counsel submits that the facts and figures arrived at by the superintending Engineer are also based on surmises and conjectures and the very basis for the allegation as to pilfering power ceases to exist and the levy of the amount also cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) SRI O. Manohar Reddy,learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that presence of independent witness during the course of inspection, though preferable, is not compulsory and mandatory and that adequate precautions were taken by the time of inspection right in the presence of the petitioner. He further submits that the facts and figures, particularly in relation to the production of the material and the consumption of power, clearly suggested that the petitioner resorted to pilferage of power. Learned Counsel further contends that the discrepancy in the numbers of seals and meters was on account of the clerical mistakes and the record clearly discloses that what was tested by the laboratory is the same as the one, recovered from the factory premises of the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE meter fixed at the premises of the petitioner was put with four seals. ( 8 ) THE meter fixed at the premises of the petitioner was put with four seals. During the course of inspection, three of them are found to be intact and it was alleged that one of it was tampered. The petitioner flatly denied the charge that he resorted to pilferage of power. ( 9 ) TO prove the case alleged against the petitioner, the respondents examined pws. 1 to 4 and filed Exs. P1 to P14. On behalf of the petitioner,dws. 1 to 6 were examined and D1 to D11 were marked. The trial Court has also taken on record, m. Os. 1 to 4. ( 10 ) IN view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, two points arise for consideration in this writ petition, viz. , (a) Whether the respondents followed the prescribed procedure, while prosecuting the petitioner ? and (b)Whether the finding recorded by the tribunal can be sustained in law ? The inspection of premises by the Authorities to find out whether any violations are resorted to by the occupant thereof is not uncommon. Reference in this context may be made to such steps under different enactments such as the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, Essential Commodities act, the Customs Act, and the A. P. Excise act, etc. Since the result of inspection would lead to penal consequences, the law insists that fairness and impartiality must be observed in such matters. When the inspection is conducted by the departmental officials, it becomes necessary to ensure the same in the presence of independent witnesses, who do not have any bias. ( 11 ) THE Government of Andhra pradesh prepared and published the A. P. Electricity Department Manual, covering various aspects of the power supply. Rule 23 8 deals with the procedure for prosecution for theft of energy. This rule mandates that whenever the department suspects that a customer is resorting to pilferage of power, the matter must be taken to the police, with a request to assist the departmental officials to prepare panchaname at the time of inspection. One of the specific requirements is that "one casual witness" must be brought from the street, and his signature be obtained in the panchanama,so that he can be cited as a witness in the evidence. One of the specific requirements is that "one casual witness" must be brought from the street, and his signature be obtained in the panchanama,so that he can be cited as a witness in the evidence. Apart from this, the Hon'ble Supreme court and the High Courts consistently held that panchanamas prepared by the officials of the department, which in turn would constitute the basis for prosecution of citizens, must be signed by independent witnesses. This is particularly so, when the proceedings are initiated, not by the police, but by a Government agency, that figures a party to the proceedings. ( 12 ) THERE is no dispute that the respondents did not ensure the presence of an independent witness in the instant case, and the signatories on the panchanama were department officials alone. In the course of prosecution also, no independent witness was examined. Hence, there is a serious legal infirmity in the prosecution conducted against the petitioner. ( 13 ) ASSUMING that there is no procedural irregularity in the matter, it needs to be seen as to whether a case was made out for conviction of the petitioner. It has already been mentioned that out of the four seals that were put on the meter, three were found to be intact, and only one was said to have been tampered. In his deposition, PW1 stated that the seal that was found to have been tampered is the plastic gray seal bearing No. 265817, put on the meter compartment. It was elicited from him in the cross-examination that it was not even written in the panchanama that the tampered seal was shown to the petitioner, in the course of inspection. The inspection report was marked as Ex. P3. It was suggested to him that Ex. P3 is a fabricated document. The evidence of PW2 is on the same lines. ( 14 ) PW3 is the Assistant Divisional engineer, who worked at the relevant point of time in the MRT Laboratory at Bommur,when the seals were tested. In his cross-examination, he stated that, according to the seal register, Seal No. 265817 was provided to the compartment of the meter bearing no. 7513185. According to him, the meter fitted to the premises was given wrong meter of 7513126. In his cross-examination, he stated that, according to the seal register, Seal No. 265817 was provided to the compartment of the meter bearing no. 7513185. According to him, the meter fitted to the premises was given wrong meter of 7513126. He admitted that there is discrepancy between the seals that were put on the meter of the petitioner, as mentioned in the register; and the seals were tested in the laboratory. He tried to explain this serious discrepancy by stating that the meter number was wrongly mentioned as 7513126. ( 15 ) PUTTING the seals on the meters is an important activity undertaken by the respondents. Each brand or make of seal has its own specific features. That is the reason why a record is maintained, which would contain the particulars of the seals, that are put on a specific meter. The seals themselves are a bit complicated and analysis | thereof needs special equipment and laboratory. The test of the seals found to have been tampered with, is done by making reference to the register. In the instant case, it has clearly emerged that there is a serious discrepancy about the particulars of the seats that were put on the meter fitted to the service connection of the petitioner, as per the register and those, that were sent for samples. ( 16 ) BEFORE the Special Court, reliance was placed upon the judgment of this court. As in the instant case, there also discrepancy existed, as to the seals that were put on the meter and that no independent witness was examined. The special Court refused to supply the ratio of that case, simply by accepting the plea of the respondents, that, in the meter register the number of the meter was wrongly written. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under : "the ratio of this case is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The circumstances under which there are changes in the original numbers of the seals and the present numbers is explained by PW1. He stated that the plastic seal numbers 265815 and 265816 were provided to the meter having Sl. No. 7513126. Originally the above seals were provided to meter number 7513185. However in the MRT Register they have written wrongly as 7513126. The same was discovered after three months of the inspection. The Box No. 1452 contained Meter no. He stated that the plastic seal numbers 265815 and 265816 were provided to the meter having Sl. No. 7513126. Originally the above seals were provided to meter number 7513185. However in the MRT Register they have written wrongly as 7513126. The same was discovered after three months of the inspection. The Box No. 1452 contained Meter no. 7513185. This was fixed at consumer premises on 5. 4. 1995 with meter compartment no. 265817 and CT compartment Seal no. 265818, Ex. P3 is the Xerox copy of the meter change slip, dated 5. 4. 1995, Ex. P3 (a) is the original of Ex. P3. All the details with regard to changes made in the numbers are shown in this document. Therefore, it is only mistake in MRT Register in writing the meter No. as 7513126. When they discovered the mistake they corrected the same. Therefore, there is no difficulty in identifying the meter number in this case. " ( 17 ) THE respondents came with the theory of the mistake in the register, for the first time during the course of trial. No mention of it was made anywhere in the panchanama,or report of the testing laboratory. Further, assuming that there is a mistake, it is fundamental that the benefit of such doubt must be given to the petitioner. I a citizen cannot be punished for the mistake committed by the prosecution. Apart from being meted out with the punishment, the petitioner would visit with civil consequences also. When there is a glaring and substantial error in the proceedings, which go to the root of the matter, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. ( 18 ) HENCE, the writ petition is allowed, and the judgment rendered by the Special court, dated 30. 1. 2003 in ESC No. 6 of 2002 is set aside.