JUDGMENT : G.R. Swaminathan, J. 1. The respondents 2 to 4 herein were acquitted vide judgment dated 18.01.2011 in C.C. No. 3 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi. Questioning the same, the defacto complainant has filed this appeal. Originally, the defacto complainant had filed a revision case. But then, on noting that the impugned judgment of acquittal was passed after amendment to Section 372 of Cr.PC, this Court directed the Registry to convert the revision case into one of appeal. 2. The prosecution case is that the second accused Pathrose Corera is running an Ice Company in the name and style of Niranj Ice Company. The said company was enjoying electricity service connection. On 17.09.2001 at about 01.25 P.M, the officials of the TNEB conducted an inspection in the said company. It was discovered that the electric meter was tampered and the original seal had been removed and instead bogus seals had been affixed. In this regard, P.W. 1, Assistant Executive Engineer, Arumuganeri lodged Ex. P3 complaint before the Aathoor Police Station. Based on the same, Ex. P7 FIR was registered for the offence under Section 39(1) and 44(1) (c) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Investigation was undertaken and final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur. Cognizance of the offence was taken in C.C. No. 170 of 2002. Copies were furnished to the accused and the accused were questioned. The accused pleaded not guilty and the trial commenced. In fact, P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 were examined. Ex. P1 to Ex. P6 were marked and M.O. 1 to M.O.2 were also marked. At that stage, the learned Judicial Magistrate felt that in view of the repeal of the earlier laws and enactment of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, the jurisdiction shifted to the District Court. That is how the case records came to be submitted to the District Court. After the accused appeared before the District Court the charge under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 was framed. The accused once again pleaded not guilty, but, expressed their willingness to proceed further with the evidence P.W 6. Thereafter, P.W 7 to P.W. 9 were examined and totally Ex. P1 to P.10 were marked. After the accused appeared before the District Court the charge under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 was framed. The accused once again pleaded not guilty, but, expressed their willingness to proceed further with the evidence P.W 6. Thereafter, P.W 7 to P.W. 9 were examined and totally Ex. P1 to P.10 were marked. The learned Trial Judge by judgment dated 18.01.2011 came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the State did not prefer any appeal. It is the defacto complainant/TANGEDCO that chose to file this appeal. 3. This Court heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. It must be stated at the very outset that the Trial Court assigned as many as seven reasons to acquit the accused. They are as follows : "1. The relationship of accused with the premises is not authentically proved; 2. The alleged tampered meter box was not safely secured; 3. P.W. 4 and 5 speak about the seizure of meter box by the Electricity Board officials; 4. The presence of foreign materials in the meter not proved to show the theft of energy through artificial means; 5. No independent witness was even attempted on to witness the investigation, seizure of meter etc., 6. No reasoning is available for having calculated the loss for the period of one year immediately prior to the date of investigation; 7. To show the average consumption of electricity the prosecution has not even produced power consumption card pertaining to the above S.C." 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the defacto complainant straightaway pointed out that the reason no. 1, 6 and 7 are on the very face of it baseless. The learned standing counsel drew my attention to the testimony of P.W. 1 as well as Ex. P2 to show that the premise in question was very much run by A2 and that the service connection stood in the name of A1. I concur with the submission of the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant that some of the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge are on the very face of it incorrect. But then, I am of the view that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment of acquittal for more reasons than one. I concur with the submission of the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant that some of the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge are on the very face of it incorrect. But then, I am of the view that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment of acquittal for more reasons than one. It is not in dispute that the occurrence took place in the year 2001, i.e., 17.09.2001. On the said date, the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 admittedly was not in force. Since the offence in question was committed prior to the enactment of the New Act, the accused could not have been tried for the charge under Section 135 of the New Act. In fact, since they were tried by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi under the New Act, the accused have lost one forum also. Originally they would have been tried only by the Judicial Magistrate. If they had been found guilty by the Judicial Magistrate, they would have an opportunity of appeal before the Sessions Court and thereafter of revision before this Court. Since the forum was shifted from the Judicial Magistrate to the Court of Session, the accused have suffered a serious prejudice. 5. Secondly, Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence. Therefore, the accused could not have been charged or convicted of any offence under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 6. That apart, there is also a substantive point in favour of the accused. The raid by the TNEB officials took place on 17.09.2001. The tampered meter was said to have been seized under Ex. P6. This Court carefully went through the contents of Ex. P6. It is stated that the seizure was effected by one S. Sundaram, the S.I of Police, Aathoor police station. But, no signature was obtained from any of the accused. There is a discrepancy in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses also. While PW. 1 to P.W. 3 would state that it was the S.I of Police who seized the meter in question, P.W 4 and P.W 5 would claim that they had seized the meter and handed over the same to the police. There is a discrepancy in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses also. While PW. 1 to P.W. 3 would state that it was the S.I of Police who seized the meter in question, P.W 4 and P.W 5 would claim that they had seized the meter and handed over the same to the police. Be that as it may, it is beyond dispute that the meter M.O. 1 was lying in the police custody till 31.09.2001. Only on the said date, vide Ex. P8, the S.I of Police, Aathoor Police Station sent a requisition letter to the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur asking for submission to the forensic lab for obtaining a report. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur received M.O. 1 on 01.10.2001. P.W. 8 is the official from the forensic department. She categorically stated that when they received the meter in question, only the court seals were present. Neither the seal of the police station nor that of the TNEB were found in the cover. The meter in question after it was seized from the premise of the accused was sent to the police station. From there it was I sent to the court after a gap of 13 days. During the entire process, admittedly, the so called tampered meter was not safely secured. This is the second reason given by the learned Trial Judge for acquitting the accused. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/defacto complainant could not dislodge this reason assigned by the court below. 7. Therefore, the aforesaid three reasons, I namely, the accused could not have been tried by the Principal Sessions Court and that too under the provisions of a subsequently enacted statute and non securing of the so called tampered meter/M.O. 1 from the date of seizure till it reached the court are more than sufficient to sustain the impugned judgment of acquittal. I find no ground to interfere. This appeal stands dismissed.