JUDGMENT : Rajesh Rai K, J. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in Special Case No.92/2009 dated 30.09.2013 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamakhandi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions Judge'), whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The abridged facts of the case are as under: On 27.02.2008 at about 9:00 a.m., the complainant-PW.1-Smt. Jyothi S. Revanakar, Section Officer, HESCOM, Lokapur along with the other vigilance squad, HESCOM, Bagalkot inspected the electricity connection supplied to the factory run by the accused in the name and style as M/s Nirani Cements situated at Ningapur Village in Mudhol Taluk. On observation they found that, before the ETC meter, cut armed cable in C.T.secondary and P.T. secondary wire in the G.I. pipe, short connection was made so as to record lower consumption of electricity than actually consumed, thereby consumed 942 HP + 800 Watts load of electricity and caused loss to the tune of Rs.2,81,69,202/- to the electricity company due to unauthorized tampering of electricity meter supplied by the electricity company. Against this backdrop, complainant-PW.1 lodged a complaint before the appellant-Police against the accused as per Ex.P2. On the strength of Ex.P2, the appellant- Police registered the FIR against respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act in Crime No.143/2008 as per Ex.P19. Subsequently, PWs.19 and 20-the Investigation Officers conducted investigation and on completion of the investigation, PW.20 laid charge sheet before the Trial Court against the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Act. 3. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.20 and marked 33 documents as per Ex.P1 to P33 so also identified 2 material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2. Though the accused did not examine any witness on his behalf, marked 3 documents as Ex.D3. 4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the State. 5. Heard the learned HCGP Smt. Girija S. Hiremath for the appellant-State and the learned counsel Sri. Ajay Kadakol for the respondent-accused. 6. 4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the State. 5. Heard the learned HCGP Smt. Girija S. Hiremath for the appellant-State and the learned counsel Sri. Ajay Kadakol for the respondent-accused. 6. The primary contention of learned HCGP is that the learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred in acquitting accused for the charges leveled against him, without appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective. She further contended that PWs.1 and 3-the Assistant Executive Engineers, PWs.11 to 13, 16 and 18 the staffs and other responsible officers of the electricity company supported the case of prosecution and unequivocally deposed that they all visited the factory of accused and found the alteration made by the accused to the electricity supply and thereby caused loss to the company to the tune of Rs.2,81,69,202/-. Further, the officials seized the ETV meter and armed cable from the spot as M.Os.1 and 2. In such circumstance, the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Act. Despite, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused based on surmise and conjecture. Hence, she prays to allow the appeal and to convict the accused. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused contended that the judgment challenged in this appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the evidence on record, acquitted the accuse in a well reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference. He contended that the registration of FIR against the accused itself not sustainable under law for the reason that the complainant failed to array the company as one of the accused. Further, the complainant failed to prove that the accused is the authorized person/owner/partner of the company. He also contended that PW.1-complainant and PW.2-Executive Engineer failed to place sufficient materials to prove the tampering of the electricity and percentage of alleged tampering by way of calculation. Further, they also failed to seize the elbows and other materials allegedly used by the accused to tamper the electricity. He also contended that the officials have not used any machine/device to calculate the reading of the meter and percentage of tampering. Further, they also failed to seize the elbows and other materials allegedly used by the accused to tamper the electricity. He also contended that the officials have not used any machine/device to calculate the reading of the meter and percentage of tampering. Further, PWs.14 and 15-independent panchas to the mahazar turned hostile to the prosecution case. As such, without corroboration of testimony of independent witness, the evidence of official witness cannot be relied. In such circumstance, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against accused. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire materials available on record, the sole point that would surface for my consideration is: “Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003? 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and perused the materials on record. 10. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of complainant-PW.1 i.e., Assistant Executive Engineer, Lokapur, HESCOM, PW.2-Executive Engineer of the said division, PW.3-Assistant Executive Engineer and PWs.11 to 13, 16 and 18-the staffs and the officers of electricity company. Among these witnesses, PW.1 set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P2-complaint before the appellant-Police on 27.02.2008. On careful perusal of Ex.P2, she stated that, on 27.02.2008 at about 09:00 a.m., she along with vigilance squad and others had been to Nirani Cement Factory situated at Ningapur and on inspection of meter bearing RR No.MDHT-1 installed in the said factory, she found tampering of the same by joining the armed cables and C.T. secondary wire and due to the same, the power consumption was showing lesser than actually consumed. On detail calculation, the accused actually consumed 942 HP + 800 Watts load of electricity and caused a loss to the tune of Rs.2,81,69,202/-. Thereafter, she drawn mahazar in the presence of PWs.14 and 15 and lodged Ex.P2- complaint before the vigilance squad. Though this witness reiterated the assertion made in the complaint in her evidence, however in her cross-examination she deposed that she did not observe the reading of meter when the cables were connected and not connected. Thereafter, she drawn mahazar in the presence of PWs.14 and 15 and lodged Ex.P2- complaint before the vigilance squad. Though this witness reiterated the assertion made in the complaint in her evidence, however in her cross-examination she deposed that she did not observe the reading of meter when the cables were connected and not connected. She also stated that, she did not calculate the alleged illegal consumption of electricity by the accused and the amount for the said consumption of electricity. Further, though she noticed the clip implanted to the G.I. pipe and the elbows implanted under the ground, she did not seize all those materials except the meter and cable. She also admitted in her cross-examination that, if the wires are connected in the underground, there is a possibility of spark and also possibility of zero reading of the meter. Additionally she stated, she does not remember the name of scribe of Ex.P1-spot panchanama. Further, PW.2-Executive Engineer who allegedly present in the scene of occurrence also admitted in his cross-examination that himself and PW.1 failed to hand over the copy of Ex.P7 i.e., the technical report to the accused which is a mandatory requirement under law. He also stated that there was three elbows in the G.I. pipe and cables were connected beneath the elbows, however those elbows were not seized. PW.3-Assistant Executive Engineer also deposed similarly as that of PWs.1 and 2. PWs.4 to 10-the independent witnesses who were allegedly participated in the raid turned hostile to the prosecution case. Though PWs.12 and 13 supported the case of prosecution, they deposed that the electricity meters were not tampered and the cables connecting secondary wire connected each other beneath the elbows situated under the ground, till there i.e., 3 ft. of G.I. pipe installed. These witnesses have also stated, the officers have not seized either the G.I. pipe or the elbows. In such circumstance, the evidence of these witnesses established that the complainant and other official witnesses have not properly examined the alleged tampering of the electricity and failed to seize the alleged materials used for the said tampering. As admitted by PWs.1 and 2, they also failed to calculate exact units of the electricity tampered by the accused. On the other hand, according to them, they roughly calculated the loss to the tune of Rs.2,81,69,202/-. As admitted by PWs.1 and 2, they also failed to calculate exact units of the electricity tampered by the accused. On the other hand, according to them, they roughly calculated the loss to the tune of Rs.2,81,69,202/-. As discussed supra, the independent panch witnesses-PWs.14 and 15 turned hostile to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, except the uncorroborated and unreliable testimony of the official witnesses, no other cogent evidence available on record to prove the charges leveled against the accused. No doubt the testimony of official witness can be believed, but the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar and Others Vs. State of Maharastra , reported in (1995) 4 SCC 255 , has held that, “indeed the evidence of the official witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in the investigating or the prosecuting agency. But prudence dictates that, their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible corroboration of their evidence in material particulars should be sought”. 11. At the cost of repetition, in the case on hand, the independent panch witnesses i.e., PWs.14 and 15 have totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and much inconsistence, contradictions and embellishments forthcoming in the evidence of official witnesses discussed supra. As such, there is no corroborative evidence available on record to believe the testimony of PWs.1 to 3 the official witnesses. It is on this ground, I am of the considered view that, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. 12. Nevertheless, this being an appeal against acquittal, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.R. Sundara And Others Vs. State Of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 , summarized the principles to exercise the power by the Appellate Court to interfere in the order of the Sessions Court in paragraph No.9 as under: “ 9 . Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken.” 13. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallappa And Others v. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 while summarizing the principles in dealing with the appeal against acquittal in paragraph No.42 held as under: “ 42 . Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play 9 AIR 1961 SC 715 while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 14. Applying the principles enumerated in the above judgments to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court has taken a plausible view and acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. In that view of the matter, I decline to interfere in the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the ‘affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.