Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by R NIRALA 1 2025:CGHC:44668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 305 of 2007 1 - Dinesh Kumar Vishvakarma, S/o Shri Bindheshvari Prasad Vishvakarma, aged about 35 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Beside Nand Kishore Aara Mills Badhaipara, Raipur, PS Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) versus Appellant (s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Azad Chowk, District Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 02/09/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge and 1st Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.43/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 135-A of the 2 Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.63,387/- with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Executive Engineer of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred as CSEB) Dagania, Raipur namely SK Chakravarty on 17/05/2006 was searching the unlawful connection of the Electricity and its theft by the way of the Town Gust and while the same Gust, the accused/Appellant was caught hold by having the direct hooking of the wires from the electric pole to his house and alleged to be caused the electric theft of 910 Wts. by the way of utilizing the electricity in Kharad Machines, Bulb, tube-light, fan without having the Meter and any receipts, during the course of the same procedure, the wires attached along with the poles were cut/removed and as per the seizure memo the same wires were also seized and the Accused was alleged to commit the same theft for last 6 months amounting to Rs.21,129/-. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused at the police station concerned. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court has failed to understand the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary 3 evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant.
Decision
Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, He submits that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2007, the appellant has already deposited Rs.35,000/- as per order dated 20.08.2007 and remained in jail for 12 days during pendency of the case and presently the appellant is aged more than 50 years, therefore, the fine sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the fine deposited by him i.e. Rs.35,000/-. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act against the appellant. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in 4 para 1 of the judgment. 7. PW-1 S. R. Shresth, Assistant Engineer (Revenue) in CSEB stated that he lodged FIR (Ex-P/1) against the appellant for commission of theft of electricity by the accused and also gave a complaint case (Ex-P/2) and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the investigation was done by the officers and employees of the Department. 8. Karmendra Singh (PW-3) stated that on 23.05.2006 he was a member of Vigilance Department in Electricity Board and they went to Badhaipara, Raipur for checking and found that the accused by hooking consumed electricity without any meter and he was running one machine, tubelight and fan and they seized electricity wire as per seizure memo (Ex-P/4) and Police seized this wire as per seizure memo (Ex-P/5). He denied this suggestion in the cross-examination that he did not go to spot and made all proceedings. 9. PW-4 Om Prakash Sharma has not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution declared him hostile and cross- examined him but he denied all suggestions of prosecution. 10. PW-5 S. K. Chakravarty, Executive Engineer stated that they received information regarding electricity theft without any connection and a machine was running by the accused, then they went to spot and caught the accused and they found that the accused did not have any electricity metre and he was using 5 electricity by hooking without any valid connection. The accused told that prior to 6 months, he had given application for electricity connection but he did not file any receipt of the same. The spot inspection report is Ex-P/6 and this witness admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. 11. On close scrutiny of the statement of all witnesses, it is clear that at the time of spot inspection, the accused was found using electricity by hooking without any valid connection. The learned Trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and rightly convicted the appellant under Section 135-A of the Electricity Act. 12. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2007, he remained in jail for 12 days during pendency of the appeal and presently the appellant is aged more than 50 years and as per order of this Court, the appellant was directed to pay Rs.35,000/- as fine, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.35,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- within a period of 3 months from today, if already not paid, failing which he will undergo RI for 2 months. 13. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. 14. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 15. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the 6 appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- 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. 16. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Nirala Rajani Dubey Judge