Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1242 (KAR)

Holeppa v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-25

P.N.DESAI

body2020
JUDGMENT P.N.Desai, J. - Both these appeals arise out of the Single Judgment passed by the Addl. Sessions/Special Judge, Bijapur in Special Case No.4/2009 dated: 26-09-2012 convicting accused Nos.2 to 8 for the offences punishable U/Secs.135(1) (b) (d) of the Electricity Act 2003, sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.3,68,220/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is as under:- That, the deceased accused No.1 by name Basalingappa was running a flour mill at Dod-Bijoor village in Muddebihal Taluka of Bijapur District. It is the further case of the prosecution is that, one Mr.Kiran Asst. Executive Engineer, (Vigilance) HESCOM /PW.11 on receiving credible information about the tampering of the meter on 29-01-2008 at about 13.50 hours, he along with his staff, head constables, P.S.I/PW.10 have visited the said spot at Dod-Bijoor village and they found that, the said flour mill was standing in the name of one Basalingappa S/o Bhimappa having Meter RR No.MP-1-, they verified and found that, flour mill was running and then they informed and introduced themselves to the person who is running the said flour mill and the said lady told them that, her name is Gademma/accused No.2 wife of Bhimappa. Thereafter, the said Gademma informed the Officer that, the said flour mill was standing in the name of Basalingappa i.e., her father-in-law and her husband and other brothers all are running the said flour mill. Thereafter, they found that the meter was working and where near not running and they noted found that, it was tampered by inserting a small wire in the meter so that, the meter was not running and they found that, the said wire stopped the recording of electricity consumption. They also found that, the accused were using 121/2 HP electricity motor to run the flour mill and 120 vat electric bulb for the purpose of light then they tested it with the tongue tester and found that it is a 121/2 HP electric motor, then they found that, 15913 units of energy was committed theft and assessed that the accused have caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,22,740/- to the corporation. Accordingly, PW.1 lodged complaint before the SHO Vigilance Squad Bijapur as per Ex.P.16, then the Investigating Officer registered a case in Crime No.69/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 135(1) (b) & (d) of the Electricity Act 2003. Accordingly, PW.1 lodged complaint before the SHO Vigilance Squad Bijapur as per Ex.P.16, then the Investigating Officer registered a case in Crime No.69/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 135(1) (b) & (d) of the Electricity Act 2003. On 30-01-2008 they visited the spot and drawn panchnama in the presence of panchas as per Ex.P.1 and also seized the tampered meter, PVC wire and one electric 12 HP motor and drawn panchnama. Thereafter the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of panchas who were present and also collected the documents regarding ownership of the said land and also assessment as per Exs.P.2 to Ex.P.22 and after completion of the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused. 3. The learned Special Judge took the cognizance of the said offences and registered the case. In the meanwhile it appears that accused No.1 died, the case against accused No.1 stands abated. 4. It is evident that, all accused are on bail before the trial court and after having served the copies of the charge sheet and other materials, the charge was framed and the matter was posted for evidence. 5. The prosecution in support of its case, examined 12 witnesses as PWs 1 to 12, got marked 22 documents Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and got identified 3 material objects as M.Os 1 to 3. 6. The statement of accused as required under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused have not chosen to lead any defense evidence. However one document Ex.D.1 is marked on behalf of accused No.4. 7. After hearing the arguments, the learned Special Judge, has come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has proved its case and convicted the accused Nos.2 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 135(1) (b) & (d) of Electricity Act and after hearing on sentence passed the sentence directing them to pay fine of Rs.3,68,220/- i.e. the value of the theft of the Electricity Units 15913 i.e., Rs.1,22,740/- and as per the proviso it is multiplied by 3 times and accordingly it is arrived the said figure and sentenced to pay the fine. Being aggrieved by the said sentence, accused Nos.4 to 8 preferred Criminal Appeal No.3688/2012 and accused Nos.2 & 3 preferred Criminal Appeal No.3681/2012 have preferred these appeals. 8. Being aggrieved by the said sentence, accused Nos.4 to 8 preferred Criminal Appeal No.3688/2012 and accused Nos.2 & 3 preferred Criminal Appeal No.3681/2012 have preferred these appeals. 8. Both the cases are ordered to be clubbed as they arise out of the same Judgment and both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 9. The main ground of accused Nos.2 & 3 in appeal No.3681/2012 is that, the Judgment and order passed by the Special Judge suffers from nonapplication of mind, the mahazar witnesses PW.s 2 & 3 have not supported the prosecution case and the presence of PW.s 4 & 5 who are stated to be present at the flour mill during the raid have also not supported the prosecution case, so no independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses are all official witnesses. The Officer has not seized the wire which was allegedly used for preventing recording of electricity consumption, non-seizure of the wire has rendered the entire case of the prosecution doubtful. Non-recovery of the said wire itself proves that, the tampering of the meter is not established. There is no evidence to show that, other accused were also running the flour mill along with accused No.1. 10. Further it is contended that, the assessment made is violation under Section 126 of Electricity Act. It appears no service of notice on the provisional assessment to the occupant. The said provisions are mandatory, but no opportunity has been given to the appellants to file provisional assessment. So, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Spl. Sessions Court has not appreciated the case in proper prospective. With these contentions he prayed to set-aside the judgment of the Sessions Court and acquit appellants who are accused No.2 and 3. 11. The appellants in Crl.A.No.3688/2012 have also taken similar contentions. They contended that as per Ex.D.1 relinquishment deed dated 10.05.1996 there was a partition in the family and allegedly flourmill had fallen to the share of accused No.3 and he is running it. So, registration of a case as against these appellants is illegal. They further contended that as per Ex.P.16 and evidence of PW.11 accused No.2-Gaddemma is running the flourmill at the time of raid. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the husband and wife running the same and it was in their name and it was given to them in the family partition. They further contended that as per Ex.P.16 and evidence of PW.11 accused No.2-Gaddemma is running the flourmill at the time of raid. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the husband and wife running the same and it was in their name and it was given to them in the family partition. It is found that only one Gaddemma was the person running the flourmill and she is liable to convict and not these appellants. Accordingly, they have prayed to set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court and acquit them. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants in both appeals and the learned High Court Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the appellants-accused Nos.2 and 3 argued on five points (1) That wire stated to be used for tampering meter is not seized, and it resulted in material evidence being not placed before the Court. (2) Though raid was conducted according to prosecution on 29.01.2008 itself. But mahazar and seizer was done on the next date, that itself creates a doubt. (3) No independent witnesses to the said mahazar supported it. (4) The person who were present at the time of visit by vigilance squad, have also not supported the prosecution case. (5) As per Section 126 of the Act and assessment notice not served. On these main 5 grounds he prayed to setaside the judgment of the Special Sessions Court. 13. The learned counsel for the appellantsaccused Nos.4 to 8 mainly stressed on Ex.D.1- relinquishment deed. He further submits that the appellants are not liable to pay fine, but only accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable. 14. The learned High Court Government Pleader argued that there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of official witnesses. In fact the notice is given to said Gaddemma who was present, when raid was conducted. The raid was conducted on 29.01.2008 and detailed complaint is filed on the same day. On the next day the panchanama was conducted and there is nothing wrong in the panchanama. The learned High Court Government Pleader argued that meter itself is seized and wire used to tamper meter is also seized. The panchanama and photos clearly indicate the tampering of the meter. The assessment of loss was made, and against that no appeal has been preferred by accused as required under the said Act. Now, they cannot argue that assessment is not proper. The panchanama and photos clearly indicate the tampering of the meter. The assessment of loss was made, and against that no appeal has been preferred by accused as required under the said Act. Now, they cannot argue that assessment is not proper. He supported the judgment of the Sessions Court and contended that there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the Sessions Court. Accordingly, he prayed to confirm the conviction. 15. From the above materials the following points that would arise for my consideration are as under:- 1) Whether the Trial Court has committed any error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence? 2) Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to warrant interference in the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 135 (b) and (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and fixing liability on all appellants? 16. My answer to the above points No.l and 2 are in the negative for the following reasons. 17. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12. 18. Pw11-Kiran.M.S., Assistant Executive Engineer, HESCOM is the complainant and raided the said flourmill along with other officials. He has stated that was working in HESCOM at the relevant period. On 29.01.2008 at 1.15 p.m. he received a credible information at Dodda-Bijjur village, that there is a tamper and theft of electricity in one flour mill, accordingly himself CW4 to CW13 and CW18 all went to the said flour mill. He has further stated that at that time accused No.2 Smt. Gaddemma W/o Bhimappa Kamari was present in the flourmill and PW11 and other Vigilance Squad member introduced themselves to said Gaddemma. She informed them that the said flour mill is run by herself, her husband, father-in-law and her husband brothers. Then he served the notice on her, at that time, they found that the said flour mill was running. But they found that the hole was made in a electric meter fixed by their Corporation with the help of one wire, it was inserted in the meter by making a hole and they found that due to insertion of wire the meter wheel does not rotate. In his evidence PW1-Vitthal, PSI has also corroborated the evidence of PW11-Kiran and also stated on that day when PW11 himself and their Vigilance Squad member visited the said flourmill situated in Dodda Bijjur village. In his evidence PW1-Vitthal, PSI has also corroborated the evidence of PW11-Kiran and also stated on that day when PW11 himself and their Vigilance Squad member visited the said flourmill situated in Dodda Bijjur village. They found the meter was not running, the wheel was not rotating they found a wire was inserted in the meter by making a hole made and running of the meter stationary. Both PW1 and PW11 have stated that they verified the meter reading. The motor was tested and it is found that motor was 12.5 H.P. Electric Motor and also 60 watts two bulbs are also used. Then they calculated the units of theft of electricity and found that 15913-00 units was totally committed theft and asses the loss to the tune of Rs.1,22,740/-. PW11 has also stated about lodging of complaint Ex.P16 and identified his signature. 19. Pw11, he has further stated that on next day i.e. 30.01.2008 they he went to the spot for panchanama and took photos at flourmill and electric meter as per Exs.P17 to Ex.P19, then with the help of Lineman electricity supply was stopped. The 25 feet P.V.C. Wire fixed electricity meter and the 12.5 HP were seized as per MO-1 to 3. PW1- Vitthal Yamnappa Bellubbi has also supported the said evidence. Though they are cross-examined at length, but there is nothing in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence. Some suggestions are made to them regarding evidence in examination-in-chief to the effect that they are deposing falsely, but both of them have denied those suggestions. So any amount of suggestion made which are denied by witness will not amount any contradiction or omission. Accused No.4 to 8 have not denied the evidence of PW11 regarding visiting the flourmill and found electric meter was found tampered by making hole in it by inserting wire and wheel of meter was made to stop. Their Cross examination is only that they are not using or running the flourmill. But they have not denied the main evidence. 20. Pw2 Narasappa and PW3 Kadappa are the witnesses for panchanama. They have admitted their signatures on the said panchanama, but PW2 has not supported the seizure of the said MO-1 to MO-3. But PW2 has admitted that his signature on Ex.P1 panchanama is taken at Dodda Bijjur by police. PW3 has admitted that he knows the accused and they are having flourmill. They have admitted their signatures on the said panchanama, but PW2 has not supported the seizure of the said MO-1 to MO-3. But PW2 has admitted that his signature on Ex.P1 panchanama is taken at Dodda Bijjur by police. PW3 has admitted that he knows the accused and they are having flourmill. He has also stated that police had come to flourmill and seized the electric meter of flourmill and he has signed panchanama which is at Ex.P1. This evidence is not denied by accusedappellant. It amounts to admission. 21. Pw4 Gyanamma and PW5 Shankarewwa who were present at the flour mill when the Vigilance Squad visited in the said mill, they have not supported the prosecution case. The aforesaid PW3 prosecution witnesses admitted that the accused No.1 is her brother. so may be for that reason they have not supported the case. 22. Pw6 G.Sharnappa, Executive Engineer, HESCOM, Bijapur has stated about furnishing the documents Exs.P4 to Ex.P14. Ex.P4 is A-Form of requisition submitted by the said Basalingappa for supply of electric meter at Bijjur village to the house and it is also mentioned that the motor is 12.5 H.P. motor. Ex.P5 is the letter issued by Chairman to Assistant Executive Engineer, KEB for installing flourmill. There is no objection from anybody. Ex.P6 is the Wiring Contractors Completion Test Report. The name and signature of Basalingappa is appearing on the said document. Ex.P.7 is the Wiring Diagram of the said flourmill. Ex.P8 is the Agreement entered by the Basalingappa for permanent supply of electricity. Ex.P9 is the Work Completion Report and Ex.P10 is the letter of the Assistant Executive Engineer. Ex.P11 is the Capacitor test certificate issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer. Ex.P12 is the intimation to deposit amount. Ex.P13 receipt of deposit. Ex.P14 is the covering letter of KEB. This evidence is not denied by accused No.1 to 3. It is admitted that meter is standing in the name of Basalingappa accused No.1. Accused No.4 to 8 have not denied his evidence. It is suggested that accused No.1 has executed relinquishment deed in favour of accused No.3, he has denied it. 23. Ex.P14 is the covering letter of KEB. This evidence is not denied by accused No.1 to 3. It is admitted that meter is standing in the name of Basalingappa accused No.1. Accused No.4 to 8 have not denied his evidence. It is suggested that accused No.1 has executed relinquishment deed in favour of accused No.3, he has denied it. 23. Pw7-Ayyappa is a Panchayat Development Officer of Bijjur panchas has furnished the property extract about flourmill placed as requested by Vigilance Inspector, he has furnished Ex.P15 the House property extract bearing No.300/B in respect of the said property, which is standing in the name of said Accused No.1 Basalingappa. It is pertinent to note that he has stated that the accused No.1 Basalingappa is no more and his sons are running the flourmill. This evidence is not denied by all the accused. He being a PDO know the affairs in the village. Ex.P17 to Ex.P19 are the photos of the said meter fixed to the board, which clearly indicates that the said meter is inserted with a wire. Ex.P20 is the FIR. Ex.P21 is the notice to the said Basalingappa. Ex.P22 is the assessment made by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Vigilance Squad, Bijapur. 24. So on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is evident that the accused No.1 Basalingappa was registered consumer of power supply made by the then KEB presently KPTCL for the purpose of running flour mill in his property. Even today it is standing in his name and he was alive when the raid was conducted, he died subsequently. Accused Nos.2 to 8 are sons and daughters-in-law of said accused No.1, they are all one family members and they are found in possession to flourmill jointly as family members. As already stated the evidence of these witnesses clearly corroborates the documentary evidence. PW7-Ayyappa, Development Officer who has issued the property extract in respect of flourmill it is standing in the name of deceased-Basalingappa it is at Ex.P15. 25. Pw8-Chandrashekhar Parmeshwarappa is the Circle Police Inspector at the relevant period and on Vigilance wing of HESCOM, Bijapur who also accompanied the Vigilance Squad on that day along with said PW11-Kiran, PW10-Lineman, PW1-PSI and others. 25. Pw8-Chandrashekhar Parmeshwarappa is the Circle Police Inspector at the relevant period and on Vigilance wing of HESCOM, Bijapur who also accompanied the Vigilance Squad on that day along with said PW11-Kiran, PW10-Lineman, PW1-PSI and others. He has also corroborated the evidence of said Kiran and Lineman and also stated that the meter was not running and they found that the hole was made on electric meter and a wire was inserted in the meter and the wheel i.e. computerized wheel was not running because of inserting wire. He has also stated about calculating the units and about PW11 lodging the complaint. The said PW8-Chandrashekhar has received the complaint and registered the Crime No.69/2008 in FIR at Ex.P20 and as it was becoming dark in evening so on next day he and other officials went to the spot and drawn spot panchanama. He has also supported the evidence of other witnesses about seizures of MO1 to MO3 and photos taken at Ex.P17 to Ex.P19. He has stated that he has taken photo from his digital camera in his kit box. He has also stated about recording statement of witnesses. Though he was cross-examined at length, there is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence. It appears accused Nos.2 and 3 are stating that accused No.4 to 8 are responsible and accused Nos.2 and 3 are not running mill and accused Nos.4 to 8 are contending that they are not liable and it is only accused No.2 and 3 who are in-charge of it and they are liable. The investigation and evidence stated by this witness corroborates evidence of other prosecution witnesses, thereby make prosecution case more reliable. There is nothing in his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. 26. Pw9-Mouneshwar, PSI has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 27. Pw10-Anand Ashok Patange, Lineman, working at Vigilance Squad HESCOM, Bijapur, who accompanied the PW11-Kiran and other officials of the Vigilance Squad also stated that they found the electric meter, was tampered and not running, but the flour mill was running. The witnesses stated that in their presence of accused No.2 Smt. Gaddemma W/o Bhimappa Kamari and other stated that her husband and all his brothers are running flourmill, the electric meter was tampered by making a hole on it, a wire was inserted in the meter. The witnesses stated that in their presence of accused No.2 Smt. Gaddemma W/o Bhimappa Kamari and other stated that her husband and all his brothers are running flourmill, the electric meter was tampered by making a hole on it, a wire was inserted in the meter. So even though the flourmill was running, but electric meter was not running. He also supported evidence of other witnesses about the conducting raid and drawing panchanama on next day as it was darkness on that. He himself has disconnected wire as per instructions of his higher officer PW11 and other police officials on the day of panchanama. Though he was cross-examined at length by accused No.2 and accused No.3, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. The accused No.4 to 8 have not denied his evidence. It only suggested that accused No.2 version that they are all running flourmill is false. He has denied it. 28. Pw12 Basavaraj, CPI who has conducted further investigation and collected the property extract as per Ex.P15. 29. On perusing the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is evident that absolutely there are no grounds to disbelieve the evidence of official witnesses. They have conducted the raid and found the electric meter was tampered by inserting wire in it by making hole on meter. The pancha PW3 have admitted their signatures. PW3 supported the seizure panchanama. In fact the Ex.P6 itself is not seriously disputed. 30. The learned counsel for the accused Nos.2 and 3 who are appellants in Crl.A.No.3681/2012 argued that the said wire, which was stated to inserted in the meter is not seized. But such contention is not tenable. Now, if you see the photos Ex.P17 to 19 which are not disputed that itself indicates that the wire is seen inserted in the said meter. The meter was seized and there is no suggestion to the either I.O. or to the witnesses that the wire was not seized by them. In fact the said electric meter with hole on it and wire inserted in it are also seized and produced before Court. The Trial Court Judge at para No.12 page 16 and page 17 discussed about production of said meter and wire photo, it reads as under: "12. In fact the said electric meter with hole on it and wire inserted in it are also seized and produced before Court. The Trial Court Judge at para No.12 page 16 and page 17 discussed about production of said meter and wire photo, it reads as under: "12. It is pertinent to note here when the complainant and the Vigilance Squad of HESCOM visited that flourmill and inspected it in the presence of accused No.2 Smt. Gaddemma on 29.01.2008 they found the electric meter M.O.2 installed in that flourmill by KPTCL authorities was tampered. In other words, according to complaint allegations under Ex.P16 the accused persons have tampered the said electric meter by making a hole on the tap of the meter and inserted a hard wire touching the disk meant for recording of the actual electricity consumption and as such though the flourmill was running the meter was not recording the consumption of energy. By seeing the same at the time of the inspection the complainant and the Vigilance Squad authorities took photographs of the said electric meter installed in the flourmill of the accused persons. Then it was removed at the time of mahazar and the photographs are produced at Ex.P.17 to P.19 which goes to show that before seizing M.O.2 it was tampered by the user of it. That apart, the meter M.O.2 produced before Court was shown to the complainant and all material witnesses who are examined as prosecution witnesses and they have identified the same as it was the meter installed in that flourmill which was tampered as referred above and seized. Even otherwise on physical verification of M.O.2 meter it is found a hole is made on the top of the meter which is metal body and through that hole hard wire is inserted touching disk inside meant for recording of electricity consumption. As a result of insertion of wire through that hole, the recording of consumption of electricity was stopped and it is nothing but of tampering of apparatus M.O.2 installed by the KPTCL authorities in that flourmill. Hence, under the circumstances, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Sec.135(1)(b) & (d) of Electricity Act, 2003." 31. So the argument of appellant does not hold good. 32. The learned counsel for appellants argued the panchanama was drawn on next day by the raid, so it creates doubt. Hence, under the circumstances, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Sec.135(1)(b) & (d) of Electricity Act, 2003." 31. So the argument of appellant does not hold good. 32. The learned counsel for appellants argued the panchanama was drawn on next day by the raid, so it creates doubt. Such argument is not tenable in view of evidence referred above wherein the witnesses have stated that as there was darkness, they returned from village and on next day, they conducted panchanama, there is nothing wrong in it when their evidence is not denied and inspire confidence in them. Third contention is about panchas not supported mahazar is also not tenable as the pancha PW3 has supported their evidence. The forth contention is also not tenable as the persons present in flourmill being relatives and of same village naturally will not support. 33. The learned counsel for the Appellant argued much about his first ground that how the assessment is arrived is not produced in this case. But, in fact, when the FIR was lodged and in the same FIR it is mentioned and it is within the knowledge of accused No.2. If at all the assessment is wrong, they should have preferred the appeal, but they have not taken any steps. This case is criminal case. It is not a civil liability case. Even there is no suggestion that the assessment arrived is wrong or illegal. Such contention is not tenable. Because it is case of theft of electricity. It is criminal offence. It is not a dispute about proper reading of meter or units and arriving the amount. This is theft of electricity, so question of serving notice under 126 of the Electricity Act does not arise. Further assessment for theft of electricity is always under Section 135 of the Act and not under Section 126 of the Act. Both Sections 126 and 135 operates in different fields. Section 126 is for unauthorized use of electricity which is different from theft of electricity. Therefore, none of contention raised by the appellants counsel are tenable either in law or on facts and evidence. In fact, the meter was tampered and it was not running and there is no serious denial by the accused side or nor there is the specific denial. Absolutely, there is no reason for prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate them, accused who are in remote village. In fact, the meter was tampered and it was not running and there is no serious denial by the accused side or nor there is the specific denial. Absolutely, there is no reason for prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate them, accused who are in remote village. The evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding they visited the said place found meter tampered and drawn the mahazer has stood test of cross-examination, hence. They have taken defense of only denial. There are no materials of contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 34. On the other hand, there is a corroboration in their evidences about material particulars i.e. regarding visiting, conducting raid in the said flourmill and found the meter is tampered by inserting wire and meter was not running and reading. The appellants each others are trying to fix the liability on the each other. Hence absolutely there are no grounds to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case, beyond the reasonable doubt. The accused have caused loss to the Corporation. The quantum of value is 15913-00 units and amount is assessed at Rs.1,22,740/-. Absolutely, there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses in this regard. Accordingly, I hold that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable that accused have committed the offence under Section 135(a) (d) of Electricity Act. Hence, I answer this point in negative. 35. I have perused the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has raised proper points for consideration and discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Judge has given the reasons as to why he is believing the official witnesses of the Vigilance Squad HESCOM and other witnesses. The Trial Court Judge has given reason as to why panchanama and the seizure of the materials are proved by official witnesses. He has assigned proper reasons regarding appreciation of evidence of all the witnesses. He has considered documents produced by the prosecution in proper perspective and also mentioned as to why the witnesses have turned hostile and how it will not affect the prosecution evidence i.e. both oral and documentary evidence on the material objects. He has assigned proper reasons regarding appreciation of evidence of all the witnesses. He has considered documents produced by the prosecution in proper perspective and also mentioned as to why the witnesses have turned hostile and how it will not affect the prosecution evidence i.e. both oral and documentary evidence on the material objects. The learned Trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the offence and has imposed the sentence for theft of electricity under the Electricity Act-2003 and multiplied the said 1,22,740 by three times Rs.3,86,320/- as per said Act. Accordingly, he has imposed the fine sentence to all the accused. I find no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the Trial Court Judge. Though there may be some minor inconsistently omission, contradiction, which are natural, but there are no material contradiction or inconsistently in their evidence. The evidence of prosecution witnesses inspires confidence in the Court particularly in the light of the defense taken the appellant-accused and the nature of the crossexamination by the accused side. On the other hand, there is corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to the charge leveled against the accused. There is nothing to show that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is doubtful or cannot be believed. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere in Judgment of the conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court. Accordingly, I answer point NO.2 in negative. From the discussion made in answer to point No.1 and 2, I hold that the prosecution has proved its case and the appeal being devoid of merits liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER Appeal No.3688/2012 is filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed. Appeal No. 3681-2012 is filed by appellants is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions / Special Judge Bijapur in Special Case No.04/2009 dated: 26.09.2012 is hereby confirmed. Registry to send back the Trial Court Records.