9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. 2. Factual matrix, as emerges from the record, is that on 25.03.2000, a raid was conducted at premises No.7231, Gali Gadhaiya, Kasabpura, Delhi. During the raid, a direct theft of electricity was detected by bye-passing the electricity meter. Three electricity meters were found installed at the premises. A factory was being run from the said premises. Two meters were burned and the third one was lying disconnected due to non-payment. Electricity theft was committed by connecting illegal cable directly from electricity pole. A complaint dated 30.03.2000 was made by Sh. Vikram Saini, Assistant Engineer, on the basis of which FIR No.120/2000 under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act and under Section 379 IPC was recorded. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. Charge under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act was framed against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge framed. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 281 Cr.P.C. in which he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that PW-5 and PW-7 did not support the prosecution. Indeed, there was no evidence showing that the petitioner resided or used the premises, as alleged. There was evidence showing that some other persons with the same name were living in the vicinity; neither the raiding party, nor the police thought it appropriate to investigate the matter further. No witness identified the petitioner, as the culprit. In the absence of any direct evidence, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to lead strong circumstantial evidence to show the petitioner's guilt; such evidence, too, was lacking. The inevitable conclusion therefore, is that the prosecution failed to prove its allegations. The findings of the courts, that the petitioner had indulged in theft, and was guilty, are in complete variance with the evidence. This has led to manifest failure of justice, warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction." 10. PW2 Naresh Kumar, Junior Engineer has stated that on 25.03.2000, he along with Sh. N.K. Sharma, Sh. C.P. Pahuja, Sh. Suresh Garg, Sh. Vikram Saini, Sh. K.K. Jain, Sh. Ramesh Chand, police staff and photographer conducted the raid at 7231, Gali Gadhaia; during raid, a direct theft of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7231, Gali Gariyan, Kasabpura, Sadar Bazar, Delhi; he had applied for commercial connection in the said premises; there was another electricity connection in the same premises; one domestic connection was also obtained. The contentions made in the said writ petition further established that the petitioner was possessor and occupier of the premises in question. 15. Next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Engineer who made the complaint to the police was not competent to make the complaint as he was not the Electrical Inspector as per Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act. In support of the contention, he has referred to a judgment in case of Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 666 in which it was observed that the object of Section 50 is to prevent prosecution for offences against the Act being instituted by anyone who chooses to do so because the offences can be proved by men possessing special qualifications. That is why it is left only to the authorities concerned with the offence and the persons aggrieved by it to initiate the prosecution. 16. Section 50 of the Act reads as under : "Institution of prosecutions. -- No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be received in such a way so as to cause any prejudice to the accused. 21. To deal with this contention of the petitioner, this Court has gone through the provision of Section 391 Cr.P.C. which provides that while dealing with appeal, if the Appellate Court thinks additional evidence is necessary, it shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate. 22. Section 386 Cr.P.C. envisages the normal and ordinary manner and method of disposal of an appeal, but it cannot be said to exhaustively enumerate the modes by which alone the Court can deal with an appeal. Section 391 of the Code is an exception to the ordinary rule and if the appellate Court considers additional evidence to be necessary, the provisions in Section 386 and 391 of the Code have to be harmoniously considered to enable the appeal to be considered and disposed of also in the light of the additional evidence as well. For this purpose it is open to the appellate Court to call for further evidence before the appeal is disposed of. The appellate Court can direct the taking up of further evidence in support of the prosecution. The primary object of Section 391 Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. The jurisdiction can be invoked to correct the wrong appreciation of evidence. Though the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court is not required to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts. This Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit case where the revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised on the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the compensation amount imposed by the learned Appellate Court is at the higher side. The petitioner is facing the proceedings since 2000. Out of the compensation awarded of Rs.4,00,000/-, the petitioner has already deposited Rs.1,00,000/-. He has prayed that the remaining amount may be set off. 27. In the present case, it is apparent from the record that FIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
