Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 244 (TRI)

Md. Abdul Latif v. State of Tripura

2014-06-25

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, CJ. 1. This appeal by the convict is directed against the judgment dated 20-11-2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Special 53 of 2008 whereby he convicted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months. 2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that the accused runs a rice mill. The electricity connection to his rice mill was disconnected due to non-payment of bill. However, on 1-10-2008 when a raiding party of the officials of the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) entered the premises of the appellant Md. Abdul Latif, they found that he was consuming electricity by placing a hook from overhead L.T. line and running his rice mill. Thereafter, the PVC wire from the L.T. line to the motor as well as the motor was seized and complaint was lodged with the Bishalgarh Police Station on 08-10-2008. Thereafter, police report was filed and the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned hereinabove. 3. I have heard Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel for the appellant, and she submits that there is nothing on record to show that the seized articles belonged to the accused. She also submits that no signatures of the accused or his family members were taken on the seized articles. She also submits that there is no proof that the accused was running his mill by illicitly tapping the electricity and hence, she prays that the accused be acquitted. 4. As far as the first point raised by Ms. Ghatak is concerned, in the suggestions made to the witnesses, it has been clearly suggested that both the PVC wire and the motor which were disconnected and seized at the spot belonged to Abdul Latif. A suggestion has been put that these wires and motor were seized to adjust the huge dues payable by Abdul Latif to the department. From these suggestions, the defence has admitted that Abdul Latif owed huge amount to the electricity corporation. It also stands admitted that the wire and the motor belongs to him. The purpose of maintaining proper seizure list etc. is to connect the accused with the seized items. From these suggestions, the defence has admitted that Abdul Latif owed huge amount to the electricity corporation. It also stands admitted that the wire and the motor belongs to him. The purpose of maintaining proper seizure list etc. is to connect the accused with the seized items. When the accused admits that the seized items belong to him, then even if there was some defect in the seizure that will not help the accused. 5. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, all the official witnesses, i.e. PW-1, Sri Krishna Pada Sarkar, who was Senior Manager, Electrical Sub-Division No. I, Bishalgarh at the relevant time, PW-2, Sri Anup Kumar Bose, PW-3, Sri Parimal Ch. Saha and PW-4, Sri Nirmal Debnath, who were all working under PW-1, have in one voice stated that on 01-10-2008 they visited the premises of the accused Abdul Latif. They found that the rice mill was running at the relevant time with the help of electricity. The electricity had been tapped in an illegal manner from the L.T. line by putting a hook and connected it with the PVC wire. 60 metres of PVC wire in 4 pieces and the motor were seized at the spot. As held above, the seizure is not denied. 6. True it is that PW-5 and PW-6, the independent witnesses, stated that after the electricity was disconnected, Abdul Latif did not run his mill, but these statements cannot be believed in view of the testimonies of PWs 1 to 4. The learned Special Judge has accepted the statements of PWs 1 to 4 and I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Special Judge. Here it would be pertinent to mention that these two independent witnesses admit that a raid had been taken place in the house of Abdul Latif by the Electrical Authorities. These witnesses also admit that wire and motor were removed from the spot. They also admit that the wife of Abdul Latif was present in the rice mill. They are co-villagers of Abdul Latif and have probably given the statement just to help their co-villagers. There is no reason why the officials should have told an untruth with regard to the running of the rice mill. In this view of the matter, I am clearly of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. There is no reason why the officials should have told an untruth with regard to the running of the rice mill. In this view of the matter, I am clearly of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. At this stage, Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the accused is now about 65 years old and mercy may be shown to him. 8. When the statement of the accused was recorded in the year 2009 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he had given his age to be 60 years. Therefore, he would be about 65 years at present. Under the Electricity Act, punishment of either imprisonment or fine can be imposed. Though if fine has to be imposed, it should not be less than three times the financial gain on account of the theft of electricity. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove what was the actual loss of electricity. The bills of electricity of the accused Abdul Latif prior to the disconnection of electricity had not been produced on record. 9. Having said so, I am of the view that this is a case where it would not be proper to send the accused behind bars six years after the occurrence. Therefore, in view of the above I assess the loss of electricity at Rs. 5,000/- per month and, therefore, the fine is assessed at Rs. 15,000/-. 10. In this view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed. Though the conviction of the accused is upheld, the sentence is modified to one of payment of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) as fine. In case of default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months. The fine be deposited within one month from today, failing which the learned Court below shall ensure that the accused undergoes the sentence of three months passed in default. 11. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12. Send down the lower court records forthwith.