JUDGMENT K.N. Keshavanarayana, J: This appeal is filed by the State under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of sentence. 2) The respondent-accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act 1910 (for short, 'the Act') inter alia alleging that at about 11.45 am on 24.04.1999, when PW.2- P. Krishnamurthy, Assistant Executive Engineer, KPTCL, along with PW.5-Ramadasappa, PSI, Vigilance Cell and other staff, inspected Ganesha Flour Mill owned by the accused at A. Hosahalli, it was found that 10 HP motor was being used to run the said Flour Mill and the Accused without obtaining any electrical connection legally, had tapped the electric power from the LT Poll by using III Phase PVC wire directly to the panel board without a meter and thereby he was found illegally extracting and consuming the electric power. Immediately the electric was disconnected by cutting the wire used for illegally connecting to 10 HP Motor and the same was seized under Mahazar-Ex.P2 in the presence of the panchas and thereafter PW.2 lodged a report about the illegal and unauthorized consumption of electricity by the accused, based on which PW.5 registered the case in Crime No.15/1999 and took-up investigation. 3) During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused was apprehended and after completing investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. The respondent/accused pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him. Before the Special Court, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7 and relied on documentary evidence-Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He did not choose to lead any defence evidence. His defence was that, he was not running the flour mill as alleged and therefore, there was no question of he unauthorisedly drawing the electric power to run the flour mill. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He did not choose to lead any defence evidence. His defence was that, he was not running the flour mill as alleged and therefore, there was no question of he unauthorisedly drawing the electric power to run the flour mill. 4) After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge held that the prosecution has proved that the accused was owning the flour mill in A. Hosahalli and as on the date of inspection by PW.2, he was running the same with the help of 10 HP motor and by means of a PVC wire marked as MO.1, the accused had illegally connected the 10 HP motor to the electric line at LT pole and thereby drawn the electric power unauthorisedly, though he was not a registered consumer and thereby he is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Act and consequently, the accused was convicted for the said offences. However, with regard to the sentence, the learned Magistrate after hearing the Counsel for the accused and having regard to the age of the accused as well as the nature of the offences alleged, felt that a lenient view is required to be taken in the matter of sentencing. The learned Judge felt that the interest of justice would be met by sentencing the accused to five only. In this view of the matter, the learned Special Judge sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 39 and Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 44 the Act. Aggrieved by the order regarding sentence, the State is in appeal before this Court. 5) At this stage, it is necessary to note that, though notice of this appeal was personally served on the respondent/accused as far back as on 04.09.2005, he remained absent and unrepresented. Therefore, when the matter had been listed for final hearing on 24.06.2011, this Court on finding that the respondent-accused has remained absent in spite of service of notice, ordered issue of non-bailable warrant. When the non-bailable warrant was sought to be executed, the respondent/accused entered his appearance through his Counsel. Therefore, when the matter had been listed for final hearing on 24.06.2011, this Court on finding that the respondent-accused has remained absent in spite of service of notice, ordered issue of non-bailable warrant. When the non-bailable warrant was sought to be executed, the respondent/accused entered his appearance through his Counsel. It is now brought to the notice of the Court that thereafter, the respondent-accused filed appeal before this Court in Crl.A. No.1120/2011 questioning the correctness of the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court. However, the said appeal having been presented nearly about seven years after the judgment with several defects, which were not rectified, came to be dismissed on 29.03.2012 for non-compliance of the office objections. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below has become final. Of course, in an appeal under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. by the State seeking enhancement of sentence, it is open to the convicted accused to plead for acquittal. Therefore, in the light of the statutory provision under Section 377(3) Cr.P.C., opportunity was afforded to the learned Counsel for the respondent/accused to argue for acquittal. Accordingly, I have heard the learned HCGP appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused, and perused the records secured from the trial Court. 6) It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent/accused that the accused was not running the flour mill and the prosecution has not produced any acceptable evidence in this regard. PW. 1 is the Secretary of the Gram Panchayath of Banasandra Village Panchayath, in whose jurisdiction A. Hosahalli is located. PW. 1 has stated in his evidence that he has been working as secretary of the said Gram Panchayath for the last six years and he knows the accused, who is resident of A. Hosahalli. According to PW. 1, the license has been issued to the accused to run the flour mill. The certified copy of the license' issued to the accused has been marked as Ex.P1. In the cross-examination it is elicited from PW. 1 that he had not visited the place of occurrence on the date of the incident. He has admitted that the license as per Ex.P1 expired on 31.03.1999 and no notice was issued to the accused for renewal of that license. In the cross-examination it is elicited from PW. 1 that he had not visited the place of occurrence on the date of the incident. He has admitted that the license as per Ex.P1 expired on 31.03.1999 and no notice was issued to the accused for renewal of that license. According to him, there was only one flour mill in A. Hosahalli. He has denied the suggestion that one S.C. Basavaraju was running the flour mill in A. Hosahalli. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW. 1 to discredit his evidence. The fact PW. 1 was the secretary of the village panchayath is not disputed. His statement that he has issued license to the accused to run the flour mill is also not controverted in the cross-examination. Of course, the license issued as per Ex.P1 expired on 31.03.1999 and the same appears have not been renewed. However, on that ground, it may be stated that the flour mill has been run without getting license renewed. Nevertheless, the evidence of PW. 1 establishes running of flour mill by the accused in A. Hosahalli and for that purpose, he had obtained a license as per the original of Ex. P1. The Evidence of PWs.2, 3, 5 and 7 would clearly establish that on 23.04.1999 at bout 11.45 a.m. they inspected the flour mill belonged to accused at A. Hosahalli. Their consistent evidence in this regard has not been discredited in their cross-examination. It is pertinent to note that during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to question No.2, the accused has admitted that PW. 1 had issued a license as per Ex.P1 to run the flour mill. Therefore, now it was not open to the accused to contend that he was running the flour mill in A. Hosahalli. Thus, the evidence placed by the prosecution as well as the admission made by the accused during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was running flour mill in A. Hosahalli. 7) It is not the case of the respondent/accused that he had obtained electric connection from the KPTCL to the said flour mill. Therefore, he is not a registered consumer of electric power. Therefore, under these circumstances, the evidence of the other witnesses requires to be considered. 7) It is not the case of the respondent/accused that he had obtained electric connection from the KPTCL to the said flour mill. Therefore, he is not a registered consumer of electric power. Therefore, under these circumstances, the evidence of the other witnesses requires to be considered. The evidence of PWs.2, 3, 5 & 7 clearly establishes that on 23.04.1999 at about 11.45am they came to the flour mill run by the accused in A. Hosahalli and at that time, they found 10 HP motor used for running the flour mill having been connected to the electric line through LT pole by means of PVC wire and the electric power was being drawn directly from the supply line without there being any meter. According to them, they also drew-up-mahazar as per EX.P2 and the wire used for connecting the electric line to the 10 HP motor was seized as per MO. 1. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that except seizure of PVC wire no other materials have been seized and this according to him falsifies the case of the prosecution. According to him, to prove the offence under Section 39 of the Act, all those devices are required to be seized and produced before the Court. This argument was also canvassed before the learned Special Judge and the same has been rejected. It is not necessary for the officials conducting inspection to seize all the materials found at the place. 8) What is required to be established to prove the offence under Section 39 of the Act is that the accused person dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy and the second part of this section deals with rebuttable presumption. According to this, if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised by the licensee exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of energy by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved that any abstraction, consumption or use of energy has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. 9) As noticed supra, according to the evidence of these material witnesses, PVC wire which has been marked as MO. 1 was used to connect 10 HP motor to the LT Pole so as to abstract electric energy to run the motor and thereby the flour mill. 9) As noticed supra, according to the evidence of these material witnesses, PVC wire which has been marked as MO. 1 was used to connect 10 HP motor to the LT Pole so as to abstract electric energy to run the motor and thereby the flour mill. Therefore, the artificial means in this case was the wire used to connect the motor from the LT Pole. Therefore, non-seizure of either motor or the belt used to connect the motor and the flour mill has not in any way created any doubt about the case of the prosecution. The evidence on record also establishes that there was no electric meter and thus, the electric energy consumed was not being, recorded. 10) As noticed supra, it is not the case of the accused that he is the registered consumer. Thus, the evidence of these material witnesses clearly establish the unauthorized abstraction of electric power by the accused to run .the flour mill and for that purpose; he had used PVC wire as an artificial means and thereby there was theft of electrical energy. 11) Having regard to the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge has rightly drawn presumption under Section 39 of the Act. The accused has not placed any evidence in rebuttal to show that he had not dishonestly consumed the electric energy. In his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused has not come-out with any kind of explanation in this regard. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the testimonies of PWs.2, 3, 5 & 7. Of course, the close reading of the evidence of these witnesses indicates some minor discrepancies. However such kind of minor discrepancies are bound to occur when a fact is sought to be projected through human agencies, as the witnesses are made to depose before the Court after long lapse of time, which may result in witnesses forgetting certain facts. Examination of witness before the Court is not for his/her memory power. Therefore, substratum of the evidence will have to be looked into and if the evidence inspires confidence of the Court, there is no difficulty for the Court to act on such evidence. The trial Court on consideration of the nature of the evidence of these witnesses has accepted their testimonies. There are no reasons for these official witnesses to depose falsehood against the accused. The trial Court on consideration of the nature of the evidence of these witnesses has accepted their testimonies. There are no reasons for these official witnesses to depose falsehood against the accused. The accused has not been able to bring-out any circumstance about the witnesses bearing any ill-will towards him. Therefore, there are no reasons for discarding the testimony of these witnesses. 12) It is in the evidence of PW.2 that even in the year 1996, the accused was found running the flour-mill without obtaining a valid electric connection and he was made to pay fine and for some time, the flour-mill was closed. However, subsequently, the accused appears to have started the flour mill again, without obtaining proper permission from the KPTCL. Thus, from the totality of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the trial Court is justified in holding the accused guilty of the offence for which he was charged. The findings recorded by the learned Special Judge are sound and reasonable regard being had to the evidence on record, I find no perversity or illegality in the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial judge. Therefore, there are no grounds to acquit the respondent/accused. 13) The offence under Section 39 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, which shall not be less than Rs. 1,000/- or with both, whereas, the offence under Section 44 of the Act is also punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, which may extend to Rs. 5,000/- or with both. The learned trial Judge thought it fit to extend the leniency in the matter of sentencing and has sentenced the accused to fine only. 14) As held supra, the accused is guilty of dishonestly and unauthorisedly extracting the electric power to run the flour mill. He had done it earlier and though he paid fine, he has repeated it again. This shows that the accused has no respect to law. The back billing charges as indicated in Ex.P.4 runs to Rs. 2,64,120/-. 14) As held supra, the accused is guilty of dishonestly and unauthorisedly extracting the electric power to run the flour mill. He had done it earlier and though he paid fine, he has repeated it again. This shows that the accused has no respect to law. The back billing charges as indicated in Ex.P.4 runs to Rs. 2,64,120/-. Taking into consideration the conduct of the respondent in un authorisedly drawing electric power and consuming the same for commercial venture and having regard to the punishment prescribed for such offence, in my opinion, the offence affine ordered by the learned trial Judge could be termed as flea-bite sentence. The sentencing policy is that an offender has to be adequately punished for the offence for which he is found guilty and it should have a deterrent effect on the potential offenders. 15) Having regard to the nature of the offence for which the accused is found guilty, his conduct in unauthorisedly extracting the electric power to run a commercial venture and having regard to the punishment prescribed for the offences, I am of the considered opinion that the accused is liable to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment and also to pay fine. Therefore, the order of sentence passed by the learned trial judge requires modification. 16) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. While affirming the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court, the order regarding sentence is modified. The respondent/accused is sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- on each counts, in default to pay fine, he shall undergo S.I. for three months. The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The respondent-accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith and upon such surrender, he shall be committed to prison to serve the sentence. In case of failure to surrender, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure his presence and to commit him to prison.