1 2025:CGHC:36933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 189 of 2008 Judgment Reserved on : 02.04.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 29.07.2025  Ramnath, S/o Late Budhram, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Mandragodi, Thana Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus  The State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Police Station – Sakti, District Janjgir (Champa) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (C A V Judgment) 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Electricity Case No.05/2007 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 135-A of the Electricity Act, 2003 & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year 2 with fine of Rs.2,000/-, plus default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.04.2005, Shri T. N. Biju (PW-2), who was posted as Junior Engineer in Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, went to village Mandaragudi along with his subordinate staff for inspection. When the team reached the house of accused/appellant, they saw that the electricity was being used by hooking the main line. Thereafter, the house of accused/appellant in which the electricity was used by hooking the main line for huller mill, was investigated. The wire which was being connected to use electricity was cut and spot map was prepared. Wire, starter, motor, flour mill were seized from the accused/appellant and spot panchanama was accordingly prepared. Thereafter, a written report of the incident was made in Police Station – Sakti and Crime No.112/05 was registered against the accused/appellant and then the matter was investigated. During the investigation, spot map was prepared. The articles which was given in the custody of Buddheshwar Prasad Kotwar at the time of incident, were seized. The seizure memo, supurdnama, panchnama, map, calculation sheet prepared at the time of proceedings were seized from lineman Gandhiram Patel (PW-3). The statement of witnesses were recorded and the accused/appellant was arrested. After completing the usual investigation, charge sheet under Section 379 IPC and 135 of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003 was filed against the accused/appellant before the jurisdictional Court. 3 3. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court framed the charges against accused/appellant under Section 135-A of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 05 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. One defence witness Malik Ram Banjare (DW-1) has been examined in the case. 5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad, improper, incorrect and illegal. There is no prima-facie case to connect the appellant in the crime in question. It has been contended by learned counsel that another person was running the huller mill and the mother of appellant had applied for connection to run the huller mill but the employees of the department demanded illegal gratification, complaint of which was made by her mother, therefore, just to take revenge, the apellant has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel further submits that the ownership of huller mill is in question, no 4 documentary evidence has been brought by the prosecution in this regard but the learned trial Court ignoring this aspect of the matter, convicted the appellant, which is not sustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the ingredient of Section 135 of the Act are not fulfilled, as such, no offence is made out against the appellant. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant to prove his complicity in the case. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. Therefore, the appellant deserves for acquittal setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment dated 06.11.2023 of this High Court passed in CRA No.408/2008 ( Ramcharan Vs. State of C.G.) In alternate, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident took place in the year 2005 i.e. about 20 years back, the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for 13 days, by now the appellant is aged around 58 years and no useful purpose would served in again sending him back to jail, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the learned State counsel that conviction of the accused/appellant is in accordance with law and there is no 5 infirmity in the same. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 135-A of the electricity Act, 2003 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 10. Budheshwar Prakash (PW-1) is the village Kotwar. He has stated that the police had seized one mini huller motor and floor mill machine in his name vide Ex.P-2 and he admitted his signature on Ex.P-2 on ‘A to A’ part. This witness has admitted that mini huller and floor machine were given to him on supurdnama vide Ex.P-1 and he admitted his signature on ‘A to A’ part. In cross examination, this witness has stated that the seized articles were given to him on supurdnama but he was not told whose items it were. The seized item was kept in the street. He cannot tell from where and from whose house the items were seized. He has also stated that after one week, the police had taken the articles from his house and at that time he was not available in the house. The appellant has one brother namely Ramcharan, and both the brothers reside separately. The mother of appellant also reside separately. 11. T.M. Biju (PW-2) is the Jr. Engineer posted in the Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Raipur. He has stated that on 25.04.2005, during 6 inspection he found that appellant Ramnath was running mini huller and floor machine by hooking electricity wire from main line illegally. He has also stated that he prepared panchanama vide Ex.P-3 on the spot in presence of the witnesses. On the same day, he seized 25 meter long blue white colour wire, starter board, one main switch, huller motor vide Ex.P-4 in presence of the witnesses. He has also stated that he handed over the seized articles to village Kotwar on supurdnama vide Ex.P-1 as the vehicle was not available to take the seized articles. He has also stated that he had prepared spot map in presence of the witnesses vide Ex.P-5. In cross-examination, this witness denied this suggestion that the house from which the electric articles were seized was not belonging to the appellant and he cannot tell that the house from which the articles were seized was belonged to the appellant as he had not collected the documents regarding the ownership of the house of the appellant. 12. Gandhiram Patel (PW-3) is the lineman. He has supported the proceeding carried out by PW-2 T. M. Biju and admitted his signature on documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5). In cross-examination, he has stated that he knew the appellant, they are two brothers and he did not know that which brother got which room in the partition. 13. Laxminarayan (PW-4) is the electrician. He has denied his signature on supurdnama (Ex.P-1), panchnama (Ex.P-3), seizure (Ex.P-4) and spot map (Ex.P-5) but he admitted his signature in 7 property seizure memo (Ex.P-2). The prosecution declared this witness hostile and cross-examined him but he denied suggestion of prosecution and only admitted his signature. This witness has admitted in para 4 of his cross-examination that the appellant has two brothers. 14. Malik Ram Banjare (DW-1) has stated that the machine was purchased by parents of the appellant and at that time, the appellant and his brother were residing separately from their parents. The machine was installed by appellant’s father. He has also stated that the mother of appellant had given an application for electricity connection in the electricity department but the electricity department did not provide electricity connection. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that Noni Bai, mother of appellant, is alive. 15. From the aforesaid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the appellant has two brothers, they were residing separately in the same premises and the documents with regard to ownership of house of the appellant have not been filed by the prosecution. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, was required to establish the fact that the place/house from where the alleged illegal electricity connection was taken/used, belonged to the appellant. PW-2 T. M. Biju, Junior Engineer, has admitted that during proceeding he did not seize and file any ownership documents of the house of the appellant. The investigating officer K.R. Koshle (PW-5) has also 8 not filed any documents with regard to ownership of house of the appellant. From the evidence of Investigating Officer and other prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that there is nothing on record to suggest that the house from where the recovery of articles were made belonged to the appellant and all the prosecution witnesses have admitted this fact that the appellant has two brothers and his mother had filed an application for electricity connection, which was not provided, but the learned trial Court while recording the finding of conviction did not appreciate that the house from where the alleged recovery was effected and electricity connection taken, was belonged to the appellant only and he was in possession of that particular premises rather it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the appellant has two brothers and they were residing separately, and convicted him only on the basis of seizure memo. As such, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court being not sustainable deserves to be set aside extending benefit of doubt. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him extending benefit of doubt. 17. The appellant is on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (new section 481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of 9 Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned 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 for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE