1 2025:CGHC:33005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 630 of 2007 Mantu @ Mantram, S/o Sushil Kumar Paswan, aged about 32 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o Village-Darri (Korba), Labour Colony, District-Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 15.07.2025 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 04.07.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 42/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 135 (a) of C.G. Electricity Act, 2003 To pay a fine of Rs. 1,56,216/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 year. . 2. Briefly stated facts of the case is that on 17.04.2006 at about 6 pm, the Junior Engineer, Tilda (Neora) was being informed through telephone by Ex. President Shri Moti Lal Ahuja, Nagar Palika Tilda that the theft of electricity was being committed in the building which was in under construction of Nagar Palika situated near Ghasidas Chowk, whose contract was given to the contractor Mr. Ashok Mittal, R/o Korba on the basis of this said information, Shri Makhan Lal- Lineman, Ramchandra Kurre-Asst. Lineman, Ramkriashna-Helper and Yogesh-Helper of the Electricity Distribution Unit went on the spot and found that the Electricity of the Government was being consumed dishonestly in that under construction building, causing wrongful loss to the Government assets to the sum of Rs. 52,072/-. The Inspection party visiting to the place of incident had removed all devices, instruments, wires and other facilitated articles found on the spot which were being used to take supply of the electricity illegally in the under construction building by artificial means connecting the wires in the over head line of the department. The Junior Engineer who accompanied with his Assistants, prepared the seizure and Panchnama memo of the seized articles were used in taking illegal supply of the electricity in the alleged building. Thereafter, the report was lodged in Police Station Neora about the commission of theft of electricity. On the basis of the F.I.R for 3 offence under Section 135 (a) of the Electricity Act was registered in the Police Station and the investigation was started. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused person/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 07 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 only adduced 01 witness 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 learned Special Judge without getting any legal evidence in the case against the appellant had wrongly convicted the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 135(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record that there was no evidence to disclose the facts of the using electricity in the building being constructed by the Contractor/Builder. As such, the judgment for conviction in the case is without any proof of commission of the offence by the appellant in any manner is shaky and lack of judicial approach in resulting miscarriage of justice and it deserves to be set aside. The learned trial Court failed to observe that the appellant/accused was 4 simply a wager and not a Contractor or Builder of the under constructed building. It is clear from the F.I.R. that the construction of the building is done by another person, but the prosecution has falsely implicated the accused/appellant in this case and the learned trial Court without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that it is clear from statement of all witnesses that the accused is only a watchman and the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2007, The appellant is now aged more than 50 years; the appellant has remained in jail for about 20 days and he is not in a position to pay the fine and it is also vivid from the F.I.R. that the main accused is the Contractor of the building, as such in the interest of justice his jail sentence may be undergone. 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. 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 5 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 Act. It is clear from F.I.R vide Ex. P/04 that the construction work was under progress in which the contractor of the said project was Ashok Mittal and he was illegally using the electricity by hooking and accused Mantram is the supervisor, but the prosecution did not file charge-sheet against the contractor Ashok Mittal and only filed chage-sheet against the appellant Mantram. (PW/01) Mukeshwar Prasad Dewangan, (PW/02) Aaju Ram Sahu, (PW/03) Dilip Kumar Soni, (PW/04) Ramchandra Kurre, (PW/05) Anil Wadhwa, (PW/06) H. L. Niranjan and Investigating Officer (PW/07) Suresh Tiwari have proved the presence of the appellant in the said building and it is also stated by witnesses that the appellant was living in the premises and used the electricity without legal connection, so the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 135(a) of Electricity Act, 2003. As such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding him guilty of Section 135(a) of Electricity Act are hereby affirmed. 10. As regards sentence, it is clear that the appellant is only a watchman of the contractor and the incident took place in the year 2006 and this appeal is pending since 2007. The appellant is now aged more than 50 years; and he has remained in jail for about 20 days and he is not in a position to pay the fine amount, so the sentence of fine or punishment or both. Thus considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2007 and the total detention period of the accused/appellant, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of 6 the case, ends of justice would be served if the fine amount is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- and the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him under Sections 135 (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in which the conviction is either for fine amount or punishment or both. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 135(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the fine imposed on him by the learned trial Court is hereby reduced to the amount already deposited by him i.e., Rs. 5,000/-. The appeal stands modified to the above extent. 12. 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. 13. 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