JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the accused against his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for offences punishable under Section 135(1)(b) and 138 (1)(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. Accused has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of Act, in default, to undergo R.I for six months. 3. He is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 138(1)(d), in default, to undergo R.I for two months. 4. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae for appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent and perused the material on record. 5. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant – PW.1 namely Assistant Engineer CESC, Mysuru, along with his staff and the police inspected the installation bearing No.R.R.RKL.3567 belonging to the accused, installed in his farm house situated in Sy.No.132/2 of Devalapura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, on 28.02.2007 at around 4.00 p.m. and found that the accused was dishonestly using electricity by tampering the meter in question in such a way that it was not recording accurately and thus preventing it from duly registering the electricity consumption and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of Electricity Act, 2003. 6. The complainant namely the Assistant Engineer CESC, Mysuru has been examined as PW.1. He has deposed in his evidence that on 28.02.2007 at about 4.00 p.m. he along with other officials and the vigilance police went to the spot and inspected the meter bearing No.RR.RKL.3567 installed in the house of the accused and found that the seal on the terminal cover of the electric meter pertaining to the said installation had been removed. Wires which were in the terminal block had been taken out. Electric connection had been directly taken from the main line to the farm house by passing the electric meter, so that the electric consumption was not recorded in the electric meter. He has stated that there were 10 bulbs of 60 watts, one T.V. of 120 watts, one fridge of 7 watts, 7 fans of 60 watts, one electric oven of 200 watts, one mixer of 185 watts, 3 CFL bulbs of 15 watts, one geyser, air conditioner of 1200 watts and a DVD Player of 60 watts. He has stated that there were 10 bulbs of 60 watts, one T.V. of 120 watts, one fridge of 7 watts, 7 fans of 60 watts, one electric oven of 200 watts, one mixer of 185 watts, 3 CFL bulbs of 15 watts, one geyser, air conditioner of 1200 watts and a DVD Player of 60 watts. The total strength of the various electric equipments found was 8950 watts. He has deposed that inview of tampering of the electric meter the company had incurred a loss of Rs.27,735/-. He has further stated that an inspection report as per Ex.P2 and a spot mahazar – Ex.P3 were drawn. He has further stated that the accused was present at the spot when Exs.P2 and P3 were drawn and the accused put his signature to Ex.P2 as per Ex.P2(b). 7. The conducting of spot inspection and tampering of the meter and drawing up of Exs.P2 and P3 are spoken by PWs.2, 3, 7 and 8. The said witnesses have corroborated the evidence of PW.1. Their evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PW6. From the spot, MOs.1 to 3 i.e., 1) 10 ft. 2 PVC insulated aluminium white wire 2) ¾ x ¾ ft. plywood sheet and 3) meter, are seized. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that premises in question does not belong to the appellant. The owner of the property is one N.Venugopal. The appellant is only a GPA Holder of said N.Venugopal. He would place reliance on Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.24 marked through PW4 namely the Secretary of Devalapura Village Panchayat to contend that Ex.P.23 is the Power of Attorney given by the owner of the property namely N.Venugoapal to the accused herein and therefore, it is his contention that the appellant/accused not being the owner of the property, could not have been prosecuted. He contends that the prosecution has not produced the electric bills in the name of the appellant to show that the appellant was either making use of the electric meter or he is the owner of the premises. It is also his contention that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are official witnesses and there are no independent witnesses examined to show that the appellant had infact tampered the electric meter or that an inspection was conducted and MOs.1 to 3 were seized under a mahazar. 9. It is also his contention that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are official witnesses and there are no independent witnesses examined to show that the appellant had infact tampered the electric meter or that an inspection was conducted and MOs.1 to 3 were seized under a mahazar. 9. The learned counsel for appellant would also contend that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses wherein some of the witnesses have stated that the appellant was not present at the time of inspection when the material objects were seized and he came to the spot after the spot inspection was conducted. He therefore contends that seizure panchanama was conducted in the absence of the appellant and the same cannot be taken into consideration. He therefore, contends that the reasons assigned by the trial Court for convicting and sentencing the appellant is not in accordance with law. 10. The learned HCGP has contended that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the prosecution case and their evidence would clearly disclose that a spot inspection was conducted in the premises of the accused and it was found that he has tampered the electric meter. MOs.1 to 3 have been seized by drawing a mahazar in the presence of accused herein who has signed the inspection report, which is marked as Ex.P2. He submits that the accused has not disputed that he was not residing in the said house or that he has not installed the meter. On the other hand, the material on record would disclose that he had applied for electricity connection in his name. He, therefore, contends that the trial Court having considered the material on record, has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. Accordingly, he has sought to dismiss the appeal. 11. It is relevant to refer to Ex.P22 dated 16.05.2007. The said document would reveal that the appellant herein had applied to Devalapura Gram Panchayat to issue NOC for obtaining electricity connection to the farm house constructed in Sy.No.132/2 of Devalapura village. The said request has been made on the basis of the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the accused by one Muralidhara. As per Ex.P21 dated 07.09.2007, issued by PW4, wherein it is certified that the accused was residing in the said farm house for the past five months. The said request has been made on the basis of the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the accused by one Muralidhara. As per Ex.P21 dated 07.09.2007, issued by PW4, wherein it is certified that the accused was residing in the said farm house for the past five months. PW1 in his evidence has deposed that three months prior to conducting spot inspection, the accused had taken electric connection to the farm house. He has also stated in his cross-examination that RR number was in the name of the accused and in front of his house, the name board of the accused was put up. 12. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated that when they went to the spot, the accused was not present and thereafter he was secured to the spot. Even though there is some discrepancy with regard to presence of the accused, at the time of conducting the spot mahazar wherein PW3 has stated that after the spot inspection was conducted, the accused came to the spot, however, in the spot inspection report, which is marked as Ex.P2 the signature of the accused is very much found. The accused has not disputed the fact that he has not signed the said Ex.P2, which also contains the list of material objects seized. 13. PW2, though in his cross-examination has stated that at the time of visiting and inspecting the spot the accused was not present, wherein in the chief-examination he has stated that after they visited the spot the accused came and only thereafter they seized MOs.1 to 3. There is nothing elicited in the cross examination of the witnesses so as to disbelieve that electrical installation belonging to the accused was inspected and found that the meter was tampered and also seizure of MOs.1 to 3 as per Ex.P3 and preparation of inspection report as per Ex.P2. Merely because witnesses examined are official witnesses, the same is not a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent and acceptable evidence. It is borne out from the record that it was the accused who applied to sanction the power and that he was residing in the farm house at the time of conducting inspection. 14. The prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent and acceptable evidence. It is borne out from the record that it was the accused who applied to sanction the power and that he was residing in the farm house at the time of conducting inspection. 14. The trial Court having considered the entire evidence and material on record and after giving reasons has found the accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Section 135(1)(b) and Section 138(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. There is no illegality committed by the trial Court. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence and material on record, this Court finds that the reasons assigned by the trial Court are in accordance with law. Hence, the following: ORDER : i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. This Court has suspended the sentence imposed against the appellant vide order dated 08.08.2011 subject to the condition that the appellant shall deposit the fine amount, (if not already deposited). iii. Appellant shall deposit the fine amount imposed by the trial Court within a period of six weeks from today, if not already deposited. iv. The Amicus Curiae shall be entitled for a fee of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand only).