9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court finds that certain evidence is necessary in order to enable it to give a correct and proper findings, it would be justified in taking action under Section 391 Cr.P.C. In the present case, it is apparent from the record that FIR was registered on 30.03.2000; charge sheet was filed on 12.07.2000; judgment of conviction was passed on 12.08.2004; order on sentence was passed on 26.08.2004; criminal appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 16.12.2006 and now we are in the year 2015. The learned Additional Sessions Judge released the petitioner on probation for a period of three years, which period is already complete. The compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is reduced to Rs.2,00,000/-, subject to adjustment of amount already deposited. In case of non-payment of remaining compensation amount by the petitioner, same would be recovered as fine - revision petition is disposed off. - CRL. REV. P. 56/2007 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2015 - Mr. Justice P.S. Teji, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Vinod Pandey Mr.Sanjeev Manchanda, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Mishra, APP for State. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Ad. for R-2. ORDER P.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner filed an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.11/2005. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 16.12.2006 confirmed the conviction of the petitioner, however he was ordered to be released on probation and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition to set aside the judgments rendered by the Courts below and claiming acquittal. 7. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence was committed by the petitioner; place of alleged theft of electricity was not shown; petitioner was not the beneficiary; petitioner was not named in the complaint or FIR; it was not proved whether the petitioner was tenant or landlord of the premises; no document of occupancy was placed; defence witnesses duly proved that the petitioner had nothing to do with raid or theft. 8. In support the above contentions, learned counsel has referred to judgment in case of D.D. Chadha vs. State (NCT, Delhi) ILR Delhi 1999-II. Facts of the said case were that at the time of inspection the offending meters were in custody and control of M/s Ravi Sun P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft of electricity was detected and illegal wires/service cable were removed after taking photographs of the site. The testimony of PW2 regarding conducting of raid at the aforesaid premises has duly been corroborated by PW4 Sh. Vikram Saini, Assistant Engineer. PW4 corroborated that on the said date, raid at 7231, Kassa Pura was conducted where a factory was being run; during raid it was found that electricity theft was taking place by bye-passing meter; photographs of the site were taken; joint report Ex.PW2/A was prepared; he made complaint Ex.PW4/A to the police for registration of FIR; he handed over case property to the police vide memo Ex.PW4/B and photographs were given vide memo Ex.PW4/C; accused was not present at the site and his name was revealed as proprietor of the factory by the persons present at the site. 12. The testimony of the raiding party members (PW2 PW4) duly proves that at the aforesaid premises a raid was conducted during which theft of electricity was detected. As per testimony of PW4, the owner of the factory was the petitioner where the electricity theft was detected. The joint report dated 25.03.2000 shows that both the electricity meters were fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that he had given permission under Section 50 of I.E. Act on the basis of joint inspection report. He proved the permission as Ex.PW3/A. 18. Document Ex.PW3/A shows that witness PW3 gave permission under Section 50 of the I.E. Act in favour of Sh. Vikram Saini (PW4), Assistant Engineer by authorizing him to lodge FIR against the persons who were found indulged in the theft of electricity which was detected during raid on 25.03.2000. It was also mentioned therein that during inspection, person/consumer was found indulged in theft of electricity by direct tapping illegally from D.V.B. Mains/ Service line. 19. Document Ex.PW3/A duly proves that Sh. Vikram Saini (PW4) was duly authorized by the Executing Engineer (PW3) to lodge FIR against the petitioner and thus there was valid permission under Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act. The petitioner cannot get any assistance from the judgment in case of Avtar Singh (supra) inasmuch as document Ex.PW3/A is an authorization in favour of PW4 to launch prosecution and it was not required that it should be in the name of the petitioner. 20. Next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise of powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is desirable. Section 391 Cr.P.C. has been enacted for the empowerment of the appellate court to see that justice is done between the prosecutor and the persons prosecuted and if the appellate Court finds that certain evidence is necessary in order to enable it to give a correct and proper findings, it would be justified in taking action under Section 391 Cr.P.C. 23. The Hon ble Apex Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 346 while dealing with Section 391 Cr.P.C., held as under : There is no restriction in the wording of Section 391 either as to the nature of the evidence or that it is to be taken for the prosecution only or that the provisions of the Section are only to be invoked when formal proof for the prosecution is necessary. If the appellate Court thinks that it is necessary in the interest of justice to take additional evidence it shall do so. There is nothing in the provision limiting it to cases where there has been merely some formal defect. The matter is one of the discretion of the appellate Court. As re-iterated supra the ends of justice are not satisfied only when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
