Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2025:CGHC:44938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 346 of 2008 Santosh, aged 37 years, S/o Shri Badri Prasad, and R/o village Bhedikona, P.S. Malkharoda, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versus ... Appellant State of Chhattisgarh, through the P.S. Malkharoda, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 03.09.2025. 1. The appeal under Section 156 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (under the Electricity Act, 2003), Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Electricity Case No. 17/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 135 (1) (a) of R.I. for 01 year and a fine of C.G. Electricity Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of Act, 2003 payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case as unfolded from the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court and the records of the case is that on 22.03.2006, The Executive Engineer (Vigilance), C.S.E.B., Janjgir went to village Bhedikona for electricity inspection. While on inspection, he saw that the accused/appellant was unauthorizedly, using electric connection with the main line for operating hauler-mill. At the time of inspection his wife was present in house. Site inspection panchnama was prepared in the presence of his wife. The accused/appellant was running 5 horse power motor for operating hauler-mill. The witnesses have stated that the accused/appellant has been running the hauler- mill since 15-20 days. The wire with which the hauler-mill was being run was seized from the spot. The spot map of the said incident was prepared. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer directed the Junior Engineer for lodging F.I.R. before the police. The police registered an offence of electricity theft on written-report of junior engineer under Crime No. 67/06 and the investigation was done. During the course of investigation, the panchanama made at the site of the incident, site inspection report, calculation sheet, wire, map were seized from the Junior Engineer. The spot map of the said incident was prepared by the police. The statements of witnesses were taken and the accused/appellant was imprisoned. 3 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir (C.G.) and the case was committed to the Special Court for the offence punishable under Section 135 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 08 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 5. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment, sentence and findings are against the law, facts and evidence of the case. The order of conviction against the appellant is arbitrary, very harsh and not according to law. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly. The offence of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was not made out and have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution even could not prove any ingredient of the offence. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, but the learned trial Court gave wrong finding and convicted the accused/appellant. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside. 4 Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2008, The appellant is now aged near about 60 years; the appellant has remained in jail for about 2 days during the pendency of the trial and he has already deposited the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court, he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail, as such in the interest of justice his jail sentence may be undergone. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present accused/appellant, so this appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 9. It is clear from record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 135(A) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003. 10. (PW/01) Netram and (PW/02) Karthikram have admitted their signatures on A to A part and B to B part of the spot inspection report vide Ex. P/01, seizure memo vide Ex. P/02 and spot map vide Ex. P/03, but they have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution declared 5 them hostile and cross-examined them, then they denied all suggestions of the prosecution and also denied their police statement. 11. (PW/03) Prabhat Kumar Sharma, Junior Engineer of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board has stated that he filed written complaint vide Ex. P/06 and F.I.R was lodged by police station vide Ex. P/07, he admitted his signature on A to A part. 12. (PW/04) R. K. Minz, Executive Engineer has stated that on 22.03.2006 he inspected the house of the appellant and found that the accused/appellant was using electricity by hooking without any valid meter and running one hauler-mill and he prepared spot inspection report vide Ex. P/01 and admitted his signature on C to C part and seized the aluminum wire vide Ex. P/02 and prepared spot map vide Ex. P/03 and he also calculated that the accused/appellant consumed electricity valuing Rs. 19, 256/-. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of (PW/03) Prabhat Kumar Sharma and (PW/04) R.K. Minz it stands proved that the appellant committed theft of electricity for running hauler-mill. As such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding him guilty of Section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 are hereby affirmed. 14. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2006 and this appeal is pending since 2008. The appellant is now aged near about 60 years; and he has remained in jail for about 02 days during the pendency of the trial and he has already deposited the fine 6 amount so imposed upon him by the learned trial Court. Thus, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006 and the fact that he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him while being on bail, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if the accused/appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him under Sections 135 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 135 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the fine imposed on him by the learned trial Court has already been deposited by him. 16. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U. K. Raju