1 2025:CGHC:44939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 569 of 2008 1 - Girdhari Lal Sahu, S/o Ganesh Ram Sahu, Aged about 33 years, Caste- Teli, R/o Village- Khairjhiti, Police Station- Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. J.A. Lohani, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 03/09/2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.05.2008 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, (Electricity) Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, 2 C.G. in Special Sessions Trial No. 02/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 135 of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.22,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Junior Engineer Yogesh Patel, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board alongwith his departmental companion namely Netram Yadav went to Village- Khairjhiti on 22.11.2005 for the purposes of survey and on that time he found that there is an illegal connection direct from the L.T. Line and from the aforesaid illegal connection a H.P. Motor was running and through the aforesaid H.P. Motor the process of paddy was going on and after due investigation he found that the aforesaid exercise has been done by the appellant- Girdahri Lal, so immediately on the spot, his companion has prepared the Panchnama and seized the aforesaid wire and a written complaint was lodged at Police Station Tumgaon and on the basis of said report, Police investigated the matter and during the investigation seized the Pump of 1 H.P., a an for 8 Blade and 60 Wt. Bulb. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant, to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 5 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. 3 4. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is erroneous and contrary to settled principles of law. The learned trial Court failed to consider this fact that none of the witnesses stated that the appellant is a person who has committed the theft of electricity by illegal connection of wire through direct L.T. Line. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence which has been adduced during the course of evidence and illegally held the appellant guilty of the alleged offence, though the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The evidence of Yogesh Kumar Patel (P.W.-5) & Netram Yadav (P.W.-2) are not sufficient to convict the appellant for the alleged offence as even the mandatory requirement of law cannot be complied by the complainant and his companion. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are not according to the provisions of law and the same deserves to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2008, the appellant is aged about 60 years and he has remained in jail for more than 15 days, he has already paid the entire the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court, as such, in the interest of justice his jail sentence may be undergone. 4 Reliance has been placed on this Court’s judgment dated 24.06.2025 passed in CRA No. 1125 of 2007 in the matter of Devnath Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and, therefore, is not liable to be interfered with. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 135 of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 135 of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 9. Netram Yadav (P.W.-2), Helper in C.G. Electricity Board stated that on 22.11.2005 when he went with Junior Engineer Yogesh Patel then they found that the accused was threshing his paddy by running a pump. The accused was running the said pump directly from the LT line of the Electricity Department. Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/2 and he admitted his signature on it from A to A part. 10. Yogesh Kumar Patel (P.W.-5), Junior Engineer also stated that he along with his colleague went to inspect the water connection and they saw that the accused was threshing paddy by running a 1 HP pump. The accused was running the said pump by connecting three wires to the RTI line of the electricity department. The accused had also installed a 69 watt bulb in the switch board, which was burning. 5 he had prepared a Panchnama vide Ex. P/2 and he admitted his signature on it from B to B part. 11. Rakesh Shukla (P.W.-1) admitted his signature on seizure memo (Ex.P/1). 12. Jatiram (P.W.-3) does not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. 13. Netram Yadav (P.W.-2) and Yogesh Kumar Patel (P.W.-5) categorically stated against the appellant/accused and they remained firm in their cross-examination. 14. Looking to the statements of both the witnesses i.e. Netram Yadav (P.W.-2) and Yogesh Kumar Patel (P.W.-5) and documents, it is proved that the accused was using electricity without any valid meter. The learned trial Court also appreciated oral and documentary evidence properly and rightly convicted the accused/appellant under Section 135 of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act. As such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding him guilty of offence punishable under Section 135 of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act are hereby affirmed. 15. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2005; appeal is pending since 2008, at the time of incident, appellant was aged about 33 years and as of now the appellant is aged about 60 years; he has already remained in jail for more than 15 days. In these circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him under Sections 135 of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act . 6 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 135 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. 17. The appellant is reported to be in jail. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case. 18. 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. 19. 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 Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV