JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is by the State against the judgment dated 23-5-2003 in Spl.C.C.No.111 of 2002 on the file of X Additional City Sessions Judge, Bangalore. 2. Ulsoorgate Police charge-sheeted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 39, 39-A, 40, 41 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who is Assistant Engineer working in Karnataka Electricity Board, as then existed, went along with the Inspection Squad to the premises of the accused on 22-2-1997. At that time the factory of the accused as running and on inspection the complainant found that the ‘seal’ was missing on the meter. Suspecting that the accused has tampered the meter to draw illegal power, he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1. Based on the complaint the police investigated and filed charge-sheet. 3. To prove the case the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.1 is complainant; P.W.2 is Lineman; P.W.3 is Assistant Engineer at the time of inspection; P.W.4 is an independent witnesses to the mahazar and P.W.5 is Senior Assistant working in Karnataka Electricity Board. Except P.W.4 all other witnesses are official witnesses. Though P.W.4 is cited as mahazar witness he has not supported the case of the prosecution and is treated as hostile witness. No cross-examination was made to P.W.4. 4. The Trial Court considered the evidence of P.W.1 found that, though P.W.1 alleges that there was tampering of the meter, however, has not stated that the inspection was made in the presence of accused. In the charge-sheet it is alleged that seal of the meter was removed, whereas P.W.3, who inspected the meter has stated that he has received the seized meter only on 1-4-1998, though the meter was seized on 22-7-1997. There is no explanation as to why the meter was not sent for examination till 1-4-1998, though the meter was seized on 22-7-1997. There is no explanation as to why the meter was not sent for examination till 1-4-1998. However, neither the accused was present at the time of inspection nor any independent witness to the mahazar has supported the case of the prosecution, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged charge and acquitted the accused. 5. Mr. However, neither the accused was present at the time of inspection nor any independent witness to the mahazar has supported the case of the prosecution, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged charge and acquitted the accused. 5. Mr. A.C. Ramakrishna, the learned government Advocate, submitted that P.W.1, who is the official witness and is the complainant. He personally visited the premises of the accused along with checking squad and they found that the meter seal removed. This fact is also evident from Ex.P.2, wherein meter was seized and it was sent for examination to P.W.3. P.W.3 has admitted that seal of the meter was removed. If the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is considered the case of the prosecution stand proved, therefore, he submits that Court below has committed an error. 6. P.W.1 is the complainant. According to him, he along with checking squad he made inspection on 22-7-1997. P.W.1 does not dispute that accused was not present at the time of inspection. Now only possibility of proving the offence is by independent witnesses. Though P.W.4 has been examined he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Seizure of the meter with tampering has not been proved by any substantial evidence. 7. Even according to the P.W.3 the meter was sent to him on 1-4-1998, whereas the meter was seized on 22-7-1997 by the police. There is no explanation as to why the meter was not sent for examination. The basic ingredient of proving the offence alleged under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 379 of IPC, has not been established by the prosecution by any independent evidence. Even the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation, has not been examined. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge. 8. The Trial Court on appreciation has rightly acquitted the accused. I find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.