- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6235 CRL.A No. 903 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 903 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. YOGISH S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O BEDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE THOTADHA MANE, KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK 2. SRI. THOPEGOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O BEDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE THOTADHA MANE, KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE) AND: C.E.S.C.O.M. VIGILANCE POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT AND IN THE HIGH COURT BY S.P.P …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HASSAN IN Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6235 CRL.A No. 903 of 2013 SPL.CASE NO.39/2011- CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ARE P/U/S.135 AND 138 OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003. AND THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 SENTENCED TO PAY A FINE OF RS.1,12,743/-IN DEFAULT, TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR ONE YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. UNDER SECTION 135 OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT. AND ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ALSO SENTENCE TO PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/- EACH IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR THREE MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 138 OF INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Venkatesh R.Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent. 2. Appellant No.1 died and therefore, appeal against accused No.1 stood abated. 3. Appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced as under: Offence Fine (Rs.) Default sentence Section 135 of Electricity Act 1,12,749/- One year simple imprisonment Section 138 of Electricity Act 5,000/- each Three months simple imprisonment - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6235 CRL.A No. 903 of 2013 4. Sri.Venkatesh R.Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellants, after bringing into the notice of the death of the appellant No.1, contended that appellant No.2 is a Gram Panchayath member, who had no hand whatsoever in the alleged incident and in fact, he had stepped into the witness box and deposed before the Court that the ill will nurtured by the rivals of DW.1-appellant No.2, a false case has been foisted against him by colluding with the officials of CESCOM and sought for allowing the appeal. 5. Per contra, Sri.Channappa Erappa, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that cross-examination of DW.1 clearly discloses that though he was a member of Gram Panchayath, he had ownership rights over the garden house situated in the place of incident and in a matter of this nature, whoever is responsible for obtaining the electricity in an illegal method either by tapping the primary line or using the hook would be liable for the punishment under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, he contended that conviction of appellant No.2 is also perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6235 CRL.A No. 903 of 2013 6. In reply, Sri.Venkatesh R.Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the sentence being a liability that has been cast on both accused Nos.1 and 2, taking note of the fact that 50% of the fine amount has been already deposited and also taking note of the fact that appellant No.1 is no more, the matter may be disposed of by directing that 50% of the fine amount deposited by appellant No.1 be treated as share of appellant No.2. 7. Having heard the parties in detail and taking note of relevant aspects of the matter and also taking note of the cross-examination of DW.1, wherein it is specifically stated that the documents marked at Ex.D2 and D3 are pertaining to the year 2012, this Court is of the considered opinion that directing the amount in deposit be treated as the fine amount attributable to appellant No.2 would meet the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) Appeal is allowed in part. ii) Appeal against appellant No.1 stands dismissed as abated. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6235 CRL.A No. 903 of 2013 iii) 50% of the fine amount deposited by both the appellants shall be treated as fine amount of appellant No.2 in respect of the impugned judgment. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45