1 2025:CGHC:6907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 604 of 2007 Hira Lal Patel S/o Shri Ayodhya Lal Patel, aged about 41 years, Occupation -Business of Haller Mill, R/o Village – Mahakampur (Hardi), Thana & Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through Police In Charge of Police Station - Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Sahu, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (06 . 02 .202 5 ) 1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred under section 374 of the CrPC against the judgment dated 02.07.2007 passed by learned Special Judge (Prescribed under the Electricity Act), Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Case No. 43/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to undergo rigorous Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.02.10 10:49:43 +0530 2 imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.43,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The said Court has further imposed civil liability to the tune of Rs.28,450/- under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 28.01.2006, Shri G. P. Sonwani (PW-2) - the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raighar while checking the Huller connection 90-1-18340 of 10-HP of the appellant at village Mahakampur, PS & Tahsil – Sarangarh, found theft of electricity by causing interference in electricity consumption by placing a magnet on the meter and also using a 15-HP motor instead of the contracted 10-HP load. The magnet was seized in presence of the witnesses and a site inspection report was prepared regarding the connection investigation. For necessary action against the accused, the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) handed over the seizure memo and the site inspection report to Assistant Engineer Ishwar Singh Kanwar (PW-4), who filed a written complaint to the Police Station Sarangarh, based on which, FIR was registered against the appellant. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence in the competent Court having jurisdiction. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no witness has been examined by the appellant in his defence. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant 3 questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, jail sentence is not mandatory. The incident is of the year 2006 i.e. more than 19 years ago. The civil liability of Rs.28,450/- imposed by the trial Court is excessive, therefore, considering all these facts, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial Court be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of this High Court in the case of Padum Lal Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh through Assistant Engineer reported in 2020 LawSuit(Chh) 193. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the same does not require any interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. From the statements of the Executive Engineer Shri Gokul Prasad Sonwani (PW-2) and the Assistant Engineer Shri Ishwar Singh Kanwar (PW-4), it is clearly established that on the date of inspection, the appellant was found to be involved in electricity theft by causing interference in electricity consumption by placing a magnet on the meter. Both the witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination but nothing could be elicited in favour of the defence. Their version is further supported by documents Ex.P-4 & P-5 prepared after enquiry. 9. Version of the witnesses is not rebutted by the appellant. Version of the appellant is plain denial which is merit less. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the witnesses and the 4 documents. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is hereby affirmed. 10. As regards sentence, jail sentence is not compulsory for offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the incident is of the year 2006 i.e. more than 19 years have rolled by since then, therefore, the sentence of RI for one year is set aside, while fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. The trial Court also fixed civil liability to the tune of Rs.28,450/- and as per the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, the same is well within jurisdiction of the trial Court. In the present case, value of theft of electric energy was found to be Rs.14,225/- and law provides fine of three times of valuation of energy abstracted. Therefore, civil liability cannot be termed as excessive and the same is affirmed. 11. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned, for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai