1 2025:CGHC:47467 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 579 of 2007 1. Tahir Khan S/o Shri Shabbir Khan, aged about 26 years, R/o Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Sabir Khan S/o Shri Raza Khan, aged about 58 years, R/o Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sunita Sahu, PL ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 16.09.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 28.06.2007 passed by learned Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003) and learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Electricity Criminal Case No. 29/2006, wherein the said Court convicted the appellantss and sentenced them as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003 R.I. for 06 months each Under Section 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 Fine amount of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 R.I. for 06 months each. Under Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 R.I. for 06 months each with fine amount of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months each. (All the sentences shall run concurrently) 2. As per case of the prosecution, on 24.09.2006 at about 1.30 a.m., complainant- Brijbhan Prasad Jaiswal was informed by Junior Engineer Shri S. K. Jain that thieves are stealing electricity wire of 33,000 Watt near Jalalpur (Jaraundha) in front of plot of Chovadas Khandekar. Complainant- Brijbhan Prasad Jaiswal directed to Junior Engineer S. K. Jain to inform the same to police station Takhatpur immediately through telephone and he went to the spot with him, where Chowadas Khandekar met near Jora turn with his informant. Upon inspection, they have found that electricity wire of 33,000 volt comprising of 3 span one wire of R phase and one span Y phase was found cut, near roadside of the plot one white coloured vehicle was found parked, in which registration number of the vehicle was not mentioned. In the said vehicle, one person was found sitting inside whose name is Tahir Musalman, resident of Yadunandan Nagar. As there being no registration number of the said vehicle, as also being found parked at the spot, the police personnel inspected the said vehicle and found a bundle of electrical wire on the back side of said vehicle. On being asked regarding the whereabouts of his acquaintance, he told them that they went towards Jora turn and they did not return yet. Thereafter, it was found that the accused and the co-accused have approximately committed theft of 500 meter electrical wire whose estimation amount is Rs. 17,500/-. Thereafter, a written report of the said incident was lodged to the Police Station- Takhatpur by B.P.Jaiswal on 24.09.2006. 3 On the basis of written report, a Crime No. 235/06 was registered for offence under section 379 of I.P.C, 3(2) of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 by Police of Police Station Takhatpur. Memorandum of Raju @ Rajendra and Sabir Khan were recorded and on the basis of which, tools and vehicle used in the crime were seized by the police of police station Takhatpur and also seized documents from the Ravindra Patankar with regard to the said vehicle, statements of the witnesses were recorded and spot map was prepared. After completion of due and necessary investigation, they were charge- sheeted before the Court of concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for alleged commission of offence under Sections 136 & 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984. The appellants having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 3. To robe the appellants in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellants have been recorded, in which they denied the incriminating charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence that they have been falsely implicated in this case. However, no witness adduced by them in their defence. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record thereby convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellants for the said offence without any 4 cogent reason. The statements of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and there are material contradictions and omissions and improvement in the version of the statements of the witnesses. He further submits that a case under Section 136 of Electricity Act can be made against a person only by filing a written complaint not by lodging F.I.R. before the police station, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the aforesaid sections, as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, however, in the said sections, the whole fine amounts as imposed by the trial Court has already been deposited by the appellants before the trial Court, the incident took place in the year 2006, the appellant No. 1 is now aged more than 40 years and appellant No. 2 is now aged more than 70 years senior citizen person, they have remained in jail for about 13 days and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them, while being on bail, however they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing the lis since 2007 i.e. for about more than 17 years and therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 5 available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is evident from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 136 & 140 of Electricity Act, 2003 and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984. Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. 9. Looking to the statements of PW-4 B.P. Jaiswal, PW-7 Sohan Vaishnav, PW-8 Ravindra Patanwar, PW-9 Sharad Kumar Jain, PW-10 Chovadas and PW-11 Victor Tirkey, it is clear that all witnesses have categorically stated that the accused persons had illegally possessed the electrical wire and also some of the witness have supported the seizures memo and admitted their signatures, though, independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. 10. From bare perusal of the record and from close scrutiny of all the witnesses, clearly establish the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality or irregularity in the findings as recorded by learned trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants. So, the conviction of the appellants are hereby affirmed. 11. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2006, the appellant No. 1 is now aged more than 40 years and appellant No. 2 is now aged more than 70 years i.e., senior citizen person, they have remained in jail for about 13 days and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them, while being on bail, however they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing the lis since 2007 i.e. for about more than 17 years, also considering this fact 6 that in the said sections, the whole fine amounts as imposed by the trial Court has already been deposited by the appellants before the trial Court and in this regard they filed a receipt and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 12. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants under the aforementioned section is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 13. The appellants are reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellants are also directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 14. 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 AMIT PATEL