9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises including the premises No. B/I/110, Maddi Wali Gali, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. Direct theft of electricity was alleged from DVB O/H LV mains. On the basis of a joint inspection report and complaint, an FIR was registered at Police Station, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. A charge sheet was filed by the police, alleging that the petitioner and his brother had committed offences under Section 39 of the Act. Thereafter a charge was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses, in the course of trial. 3. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Sections 313/281 Cr.P.C where he expressed ignorance of the raid conducted by the DVB or any alleged theft of electricity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to have visited the site, was unaware of the petitioner. It was submitted that the co-accused was convicted, and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. Even though the petitioner's presence and allegations of theft by him could not be established, yet the courts wrongly convicted him. 7. PW-1 A.K. Bagga, AE, deposed that the inspector, P.K. Gulati had not brought any ownership document to disclose whether accused persons were in occupation of, and using the premises. He had lodged the FIR, as per his statement, only on the verbal information received from the said P.K. Gulati. PW-3-Gian Chand, JE deposed in his cross-examination that he could not tell the number of the premises of the accused persons. He admitted that the accused pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the court. This, coupled with the omission by the petitioner to query about father's name of Raju, impelled the court to conclude that the trial court had correctly convicted him. 10. PW-6 mentioned that he was not present at the time of the raid; he was brought into the picture, when the seizures were made. He also deposed that there was a possibility that more than one person with the same name were living in the village. In addition, this witness also stated that he recorded the statement of the lineman and the photographer; he admitted that the premises were locked at the relevant time. 11. The picture which emerges from the above narrative is that the mainstay of the prosecution version were PW-5 and PW-7; they did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not notice these, and proceeded to convict the petitioner, who was even sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year. 13. In Dulichand v. Delhi Administration 1975CriLJ1732 the Supreme Court held that the High Court in revision, exercises supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, Therefore, it would normally be justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the trial and appellate courts are correct. Yet, the High Court can review the materials for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the findings of fact reached by the subordinate courts and that the finding of fact is not unreasonable or per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
