1 2025:CGHC:5897 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1167 of 20 07  Sat Bai W/o Latelu Ram aged about 47 years, caste Satnami, R/o Village nawagaon (Khisora), Police Station Magarload, District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh, Through: P.S. Magarload, District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Suraj Jaiswal, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 31 / 01 / 202 5 1. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 24/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of Electric Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,43,535/- and in default of payment of fine amount simple imprisonment for 6 months. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.02.12 10:46:55 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution as per the final report submitted by the police station Magarload is that on 15.12.2005, Junior Engineer A.K. Tiwari (CGSEB Distribution centre Magarload, District Dhamtari) along with his staff checked the electric meter of the Haular mill of the accused/appellant, situated at village Nawagaon. On opening the meter box he found a hole in the meter fibre on which 3x20 P.V.C. wire was connected to the incoming terminal of the meter, this clarified the fact that theft of electricity was being committed by the accused/appellant illegally. The theft of electricity was estimated to be Rs. 47,845/-. Shri Tiwari inspected the site and prepared the Panchnama. The meter along with wires was seized in front of the witnesses and FIR was lodged against the appellants. On the application made to P.S. Magarload and for taking cognizance, an application was filed before the Judicial Magistrate. After conducting the investigation the final charge sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari. The charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act was framed against the appellant and another co-accused Lateluram. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. The statement of the 3 accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which she denied the circumstances appearing against her and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, the appellant has examined only one witness (DW-1) in her defence. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2007, learned Special Judge has acquitted the another co- accused namely Latelu Ram Satnami (husband of the appellant herein) for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Electricity Act. However, the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no direct evidence of electricity theft by the appellant Sat Bai. Junior Engineer Atul Kumar Tiwari (PW-1), who conducted the investigation proceedings in the case, has mentioned the number as 65938 of the electricity meter which was tampered with in the seizure memo Ex.P-2, whereas in the meter seized by the police vide Ex.P-6, the number of the meter is mentioned as 65943, thus, the prosecution mentions two different meters, as such, case of the prosecution is completely doubtful. The conviction of the appellant is not justified. Latelu Ram Satnami has been said to have 4 drawn an illegal connection and tampered with the meter, but he has been acquitted. Whereas, even in the absence of clear evidence, the appellant Sat Bai has been convicted and punished for electricity theft by tampering with the meter, making unauthorized holes in the meter and inserting wires in the incoming terminal. The conviction of the appellant is not based on clear, sufficient and reliable evidence beyond doubt, therefore, the order in question is not sustainable. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. From the perusal of the entire evidence, it is clear that Junior Engineer Atul Kumar Tiwari (PW-1) has prepared documents like Panchnama Ex.P-1, seizure Ex.P-2, spot map Ex.P-3, information given at the police station Ex.P- 4, information given to the judicial magistrate Ex.P-5 etc. stating that the entire investigation proceedings were done on 15.12.2005, in all of the documents the meter's serial number is mentioned as 65938. It is also noteworthy that on behalf of the appellant party, the 5 statement of co-accused Latelu Ram Satnami was recorded as a defence witness before the trial court and he has presented documents from Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-13 in support of her case. It is also clear from the documents that the serial number of the disputed meter was 65938 as mentioned in seizure memo Ex.P-2. The same serial number is also mentioned in the document Ex.D-10 presented by Latelu Ram Satnami as defence witness, the copy of which was given to the appellant party at the time of the Panchanama proceedings. In the above situation, when a written complaint about the action taken by the junior engineer was lodged with the Magarload police station along with the prepared documents, the First Information Report Ex.P-7 was registered and in which also there is a mention of presenting the Panchanama and seizure memo etc. Despite that, if the meter's serial number is mentioned as 43 instead of 38 after 659 in the seizure memo Ex.P-6 prepared by the police, then the entire case of the prosecution cannot be considered doubtful on the basis of the said clerical error. In this situation, there is no error in the conclusion recorded by the trial Court after examining the material evidence. 9. So far as the next contention of the appellant that there is a lack of clear evidence against her regarding theft of 6 electricity is concerned, in this regard the trial court has discussed the evidence presented in detail in its decision and in para 19, it has been found proved that the appellant has committed theft of electricity. That conclusion is not found to be adverse or contradictory in the light of the evidence presented and the law. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is not acceptable. 10.As a result of the above discussions, this Court finds that the conviction of the appellant is based on the proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record. The impugned judgment regarding the sentence of the appellant is also appropriate, there is no need for interference in that too. Hence, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11.The record of the trial Court along with the copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu