2024 M L D 276 S.462-J PPC
Interference , improper use or tampering with electric meter by domestic consumer --- Appreciation of evidence --- Benefit of doubt --- Delay of three days in reporting the matter to the police --- Accused was found involved in committing theft of household electricity by connecting his wires directly to the main line --- There was almost a three days delay in lodging the complaint , which needed to be explained by the prosecution --- In the prosecution's case , during the checking of electricity theft , the complainant's team removed the meter from the alleged premises --- During cross - examination , complainant admitted that he had not proceeded to the place of occurrence --- However , during his examination - in - chief , complainant stated that his staff removed the meter of the accused from the site of occurrence --- After returning to the office , they reported the matter to him - Staff produced the meter before complainant , which he took into possession through a recovery memo , which was attested by officials as recovery witnesses --- If this was so , what prevented complainant from lodging the complaint immediately after preparing the recovery memo --- Absolutely no evidence on the prosecution's side was available to show the reason for three days delay in lodging the complaint --- Complainant reported the incident based on hearsay evidence from the surveillance team as he had not witnessed that the accused was committing theft of the electricity by connecting wires with a direct line --- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt.
Criminal Appeal No. 29417 of 2022
GHULAM JAFFAR versus The STATE and others
2024 M L D 276
S . 462 -J --- Interference , improper use or tampering with electric meter by domestic consumer --- Appreciation of evidence --- Benefit of doubt --- Non - recovery of wire connected with the main line --- Accused was found involved in committing theft of household electricity by connecting his wires directly to the main line --- Record showed that the witnesses had clearly stated that they had removed only a meter of the accused from the place of the occurrence --- However , the wire , connected directly with the main cable / line of Electric Power Company , was not taken into possession --- Recovery memo of 2 - meter wire was not made known to the court --- Head Constable / Moharar did not depose a single word that he produced cable attached from the meter before the Investigating Officer and he detached the same from the meter and secured through recovery memo --- Recovery memo was allegedly attested by two witnesses --- Both the said witnesses were not examined , nor were they cited as prosecution witnesses --- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt -
Interference , improper use or tampering with electric meter by domestic consumer -- Appreciation of evidence --- Benefit of doubt --- Accused was found involved in committing theft of household undated recovery memo electricity by connecting his wires directly to the main line --- As per the I mentioned Single phase Meter No.181232 and nothing was mentioned prepared by complainant , it was only in the recovery memo that where such Meter was installed --- It was not mentioned as to who and when the said Meter was removed or whether the same was sealed after removal from the premises --- Perusal of the recovery memo revealed that the consumer's name and the Meter number were changed from the one written earlier after putting ' whitener ' --- Seizure memo showed that the connection was in the name of son of accused --- However , no documentary evidence was produced by the prosecution to establish that the accused was owner of the that they removed the meter from the accused's premises --- In the house --- Line Superintendent had deposed during examination - in - chief prosecution case , the premises where stolen electricity was used belonged to the accused --- Complainant and other witnesses had not produced any proof that the premises belonged to the accused --- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt -
Withholding the best piece of evidence --- Scope - Accused was found involved in committing theft of household electricity by connecting his wires directly to the main line --- Record showed that the Surveillance Team of Electric Power Company had not secured the wire allegedly connected with the main line nor produced it before complainant - Prosecution had withheld the best piece of evidence - Undoubtedly , prosecution's duty was to lay before the Court all material witnesses and case properties secured during the investigation available to it to unfold its case - Non - production of necessary witnesses or material before the Court could be said to mean that the prosecution withheld the best evidence - Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt
Criminal Appeal No. 29417 of 2022
GHULAM JAFFAR versus The STATE and others
2024 M L D 276
0 Comments