1 2025:CGHC:32009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 773 of 2007 Lingraj Patel S/o Dhajaram Patel, aged about 40 years, R/o village Chhuipali, Police Station Saraipali, District-Mahasamund, (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 10.07.2025. 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 31.08.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Electricity) Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 17/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 379 of I.P.C. R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 05 months. U/s 135(a) of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003. Fine of Rs. 1,70,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the date of incident I.e., 23.11.2005 Executive Engineer Satarkta, Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Mandal namely D.K. Sahu has lodged the report with averment that the appellant has connected the wire in L.T. Line and theft the electricity so the Junior Engineer M.K. Sao, Line Man Hem Shankar Verma went to the spot and they seized service wire of 72 mtrs and found that the appellant was using theft electricity in Drill Machine, Compressor Machine, Submersible pump and also lighted 3 bulbs, as such they seized all the articles from the appellant and lodged the report against him. 3. During the investigation, the accused was taken into custody and the statement of the accused person/appellant and other relevant witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and seizures were made. 4. After completion of due and necessary investigation, Thana Police has filed the charge sheet before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate First Class and looking to the fact that the offence under the Electricity Act is 3 triable by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate First Class has committed the case for its proper adjudication to the learned Special Judge, Mahasamund, C.G. for offence under Sections 379, 135 (a) of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 04 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. 6. 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. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the material available on record. The learned Special Judge without getting any legal evidence in the case against the appellant had wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act. The learned Special Judge has wrongly held that the prosecution agency has proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt, though the case of the prosecution is not supported by the independent witness. The learned trial Court did not consider the fact that in the present case, the Investigating Officer was not examined and without establishing the ownership of the accused and disputed the premises, the learned trial Court wrongly 4 convicted the appellant. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2007, The appellant is now aged more than 60 years; he has already deposited whole fine amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- on two installments i.e., Rs. 90,000/- on 31.08.2007 and Rs. 80,000/- on 07.09.2007 so in the interest of justice his jail sentence may be set aside. 8. 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 being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 10. It is clear from record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 379 of IPC & Section 135(a) of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 379 of IPC and Section 135(a) of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act. 11. (PW/01) Ram Singh Dhruw, (PW/02) Hem Shankar Verma, (PW/03) Anwar Ahmed and (PW/04) D. R. Sahu have supported the case of the 5 prosecution and stated that the appellant was found unauthorizedly using electricity by hooking the line. The learned trial Court has also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 379 of IPC and Section 135(a) of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act,2003. So, his conviction is affirmed. 12. As regards sentence it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2005, the appeal is pending since 2007 and the appellant is facing lis for more than 20 years, he is now aged more than 60 years and he deposited whole fine amount. Section 379 of IPC and Section 135(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 are punishable for either for fine amount or punishment or both, So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence part of the Section 379 of IPC is set aside, however, the fine amount as imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The appeal stands modified to the above extent. 14. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 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/- before the court concerned forthwith. The bail bond furnished by the appellant 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. 15. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back 6 immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U. K. Raju