1 2025:CGHC:33008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 29.04.2025 Judgment Delivered on 15.07.2025 CRA No. 200 of 2007 Jokhu Ram Verma S/o Shri Harish Chandra Verma, aged about 42 years, R/o village Kundru, P.S. Nevra, District Raipur. ... Appellant Versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, through the Police Station Nevra, District Raipur. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment 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 28.02.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge & First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Special Case No. 37/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 135 (A) of C.G. Electricity Act, 2003 To pay a fine of Rs. 1,11,417/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 year. . 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 07.07.2006 around 4.45 p.m. at village Kundru, the appellant has allegedly been found running a flour mill by the use of electricity for which the appellant was not allegedly authorized. It has been stated that the authorities have found that the said act of omission and commission on the part of the appellant amounts to an offence under Section 137 (A) of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’) and, therefore, the electricity meter, wire etc. have been seized. The prosecution case is further that on account of the said act on the part of the appellant, the respondent Board has sustained a loss of Rs. 37,139/-. On the report being lodged by one Sub-Engineer namely Shri V.K. Tiwari, F.I.R. was registered and thereafter, investigation was started. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) and the case was committed to the Special Judge & First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the 3 incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 5. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the trial Court is not sustainable in law. The learned trial Court has failed to see that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the ingredients of the charges under Section 135(A) of the Act. There is no document on record by which one can reach to the conclusion that the appellant has committed a theft of electricity worth Rs. 37,139/-. The sentence imposed on a person who is plying auto rickshaw of deposit of Rs. 1,11,417/- is too harsh to be sustained. The appreciation of evidence brought on record by the learned trial Court if tested on the touchstone of well established principles of criminal jurisprudence as stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments, the one and only conclusion which may be drawn is that the conviction of the appellant is bad-in-law. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present accused/appellant, so this appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4 8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 9. It is clear from record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 135(A) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 135(A) of Electricity and sentenced him to fine of Rs. 1,11,417/- with default stipulation. 10. (PW/01) Kalyan Das Banjare stated that meter was seized before him as per seizure memo Ex. P/01 and he admitted his signature on A to A part. (PW/02) Prahlad Kumar Yadav has not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, but he denied the suggestions of the prosecution. In his cross- examination he only admitted his signature on F.I.R. (Ex. P/02) and seizure memo vide Ex. P/01. 11. (PW/03) Vinod Kumar Tiwari stated that on the date of incident, the accused was running flour mill illegally by his own connection and he seized meter of accused and informed at police station. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that the accused committed theft of electricity worth Rs. 37,000/-, but in cross-examination he admitted that he informed the police that the accused committed theft of electricity of Rs. 4,313/-. (PW/06) S.K. Chakravarthy also stated that he examined the meter of accused and admitted his signature on spot inspection report Ex. P/06 and seizure memo Ex. P/05 and he admitted that the 5 accused was running his flour mill using domestic meter. 12. (PW/07) Teju Ram also stated that the accused was running his flour mill using domestic meter. 13. (PW/03) Vinod Kumar Tiwari admitted this suggestion of defence that he informed the police on 10.05.2006 that the accused committed theft of electricity of Rs. 4,313/-, but in Ex. P/04 it was informed by the Junior Engineer that the accused has committed theft of electricity of Rs. 37,139/-. It is admitted by all witnesses of electricity department that the accused had domestic electric meter and he was running his flour mill by this meter. (PW/06) S.K. Chakravarthy admitted in para 8 that domestic meter was there in the house of the accused and he himself stated that it was shown as commercial meter and he also admitted that upon checking the electricity connection bill he found that the electricity meter was a commercial one and (PW/04) Panwar Singh Yadav also admitted this suggestion of the defence that theft of electricity was of Rs. 4,313/-, but after calculation it was informed in F.I.R. as 37,139/-. The prosecution has failed to prove this fact as to how it was calculated as Rs. 4,313 to Rs. 37,139/-. 14. For sake of convenience, Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 is herein mentioned as under:- “Section 135. Theft of electricity. (1) Whoever, dishonestly,- (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may 6 be; or (b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or (c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or (d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or (e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both: Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use- (i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity. (ii) exceeds 10 Kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity: Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted 7 abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any other source or generating station: Provided also that if it is provided that any artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity. Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorised for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity: Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty four hour from the time of such disconnect: Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause., restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment;] (2) [Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be, authorised] in this behalf by the State Government may- (a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity [has been or is being], used unauthorisedly; (b) search, seize and remove all such devices, 8 instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which [ has been or is being], used for unauthorised use of electricity; (c) examine or seize any books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in his presence. (3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list: Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises. (4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under this Act.” 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of (PW/01) Kalyan Das Banjare, (PW/03) Vinod Kumar Tiwari, (PW/06) S.K. Chakravarthy and (PW/07) Teju Ram Netam it stands proved that the appellant committed theft of electricity. As such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding him guilty of Section 135(A) of Electricity Act are hereby affirmed. 16. It is clear from the record that the accused has deposited Rs. 40,000 till date. As per the correspondences of Electricity Department obtained by the appellant under R.T.I. Act and filed with covering memo, it transpires that initially through letter dated 10.07.2006 the Junior 9 Engineer C.S.E.B. wrote letter to the Station House Officer Police Station Newara for registering the F.I.R. against the accused/appellant for commission of electricity theft whereby a loss of Rs. 4,313/- has been caused to the C.S.E.B. The further correspondences show that when the matter was sent to the then Executive Engineer for approval, the loss caused by theft of electricity was recalculated as Rs. 37,139/-. However, the prosecution has not been able to explain as to how such calculation has been made. (PW/03) Vinod Kumar Tiwari in his cross- examination admits that in his letter dated 10.05.2006 the S.H.O, Newara has mentioned about electricity theft of Rs. 4,313/- only, but after calculation being made by the Executive Engineer, a sum of Rs. 37,000/- was imposed on the appellant as fine. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the fine imposed upon the appellant of Rs. 1,11,417/- is reduced to the amount already deposited by him i.e., Rs. 40,000/-. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 135(A) of the Electricity Act, the fine imposed on him by the learned trial Court is hereby reduced to the amount already deposited by him i.e., Rs. 40,000/-. 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 10 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 U. K. Raju