1 2025:CGHC:4777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 466 of 2021 1 - Narayandas Panika S/o Sumenddas Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khaparitad, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Maryadit Through Executive Engineer R.S. Patel (Sanchar And Sudhar), Division Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Maryadit, Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Pramod Jogi, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Vivek Singhal, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 27/01/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003) District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Electricity Criminal Case No. 143/2019 on 15/03/2021, by which the appellant has been convicted NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.03 17:12:23 +0530 2 under Section 138 (1) (B) of Electricity Act, 2003 and has been sentenced with simple imprisonment for three months along with fine amount of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that appellant did not paid the electricity bill of Rs.1,03,860/-, therefore the said department has disconnected the electricity of the appellant. Subsequently on 18/07/2019, the investigating officer along with team has found that the appellant has reconnected the electricity and using 168 Watts Electricity Energy, therefore on the basis of investigation, Rs.1,06,943/ Temporary Fine amount imposed to the appellant and complaint case under Section 138 (1) (b) of Electricity Act has been filed by the department, therefore, the learned special judge convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence mentioned above vide his impugned judgment dated 15/03/2021. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is material omission and contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, impugned judgment dated 15/03/2021 is bad and not sustainable according to law and convicting the appellant for the offences mentioned above, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be set-aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the charges under Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 5. On the contrary, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 3 7. Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which provides as under :- “Section 138. (Interference with meters or works of licensee): (1) Whoever, - (a) unauthorisedly connects any meter, indicator or apparatus with any electric line through which electricity is supplied by a licensee or disconnects the same from any such electric line; or (b) unauthorisedly reconnects any meter, indicator or apparatus with any electric line or other works being the property of a licensee when the said electric line or other works has or have been cut or disconnected; or (c) lays or causes to be laid, or connects up any works for the purpose of communicating with any other works belonging to a licensee; or (d) maliciously injures any meter, indicator, or apparatus belonging to a licensee or willfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator or apparatus or prevents any such meter, indicator or apparatus from duly registering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both, and , in the case of a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; and if it is proved that any means exist for making such connection as is referred to in clause (a) or such re-connection as is referred to in clause (b), or such communication as is referred to in clause (c), for causing such alteration or prevention as is referred to in clause (d), and that the meter, indicator or apparatus is under the custody or control of the consumer, whether it is his property or not, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such connection, reconnection, communication, alteration, prevention or improper use, as the case may be, has been knowingly and willfully caused by such consumer.” 4 8. PW-3 Nandlal Satnami has conducted an enquiry and issue notice (Ex.P/10) on spot in which B to B part brother of the accused Sukhdas Panika has signed. The enquiry team has found that appellant has reconnected the electricity and using illegally electricity, Panchnama (Ex.P/3) were prepared on the spot. This statement has been supported by PW-1 and PW-2. There is no previous enmity with the witnesses, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant under Section 138 (1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 9. Section 138 of the Electricity Act provides punishment with for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- or with both. Prosecution has not shown any previous antecedent of the accused. The case is of the year 2019 and more than 5 years has been elapsed. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly that he is first offender, there is no previous antecedent, as far as sentence part is concerned three months imprisonment is a harsh punishment, hence, this part is set-aside and the fine amount is affirmed. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed, however, the sentence part of the appellant for a period of three months is set-aside and the fine sentence is affirmed. Accused was not in custody during trial. Fine amount has already been paid by the appellant before the trial Court. 12. Since the appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 5 13. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde