1 2025:CGHC:27447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1125 of 2007 1 - Devnath Nayak, aged 47 years, S/o Shri Dhanurjay Nayak, R/o Village Ajgarkhar, PS Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 24/06/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity), Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Case No.16/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 379 of IPC and Section 135-A of Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,40,000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for 6 months. Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that upon receiving information about the theft of electricity, Mr. J.S. Netam, E.E. Chief Electrical Inspectorate at C.G.S.B. Gudhiyari Raipur along with other Assistant Officer Prabhakar Patel and C.S. Rathore A.E. posted at CS.E.B.Basna on 23/11/2005 at 14.30 hrs, visited for inspection to Village Ajgarkhar and during the course of their inspection visit, the Holler-Mill belonging to the appellant was found in unauthorized use of electricity direct from the pole without proper connection. On the spot unauthorized wire line was disconnected by the chief Electrical Inspectorate and thereafter on 24/11/2005 at 10.20 hrs. F.I.R. was lodged by C.S.Rathore, A.E. Basna before P.S. Basna, whereby Crime No.336/05 for the offence U/Sec. 379 of 1.P.C.& Sec. 135 (a) of C.G. State Electricity Act, 2003 was registered against the appellant. After the complete investigation charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Trial after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court has not considered and accepted the compromise application of the appellant. The appellant had already deposited Rs.79,762/- with the office of the CSEB, Basna on 19/09/2007 having its receipt No.3735/340 against charges for unauthorized use & theft of Electricity. He 3 further submits that the petitioner had also deposited amount of Rs.2,20,000/- with the electricity Department for the purpose of compounding of offence vide Ex-D/2, but the same was not considered by the learned Trial Court but the same was treated by the Court as intimation of permission for compromise and the appellant was wrongly convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Before the learned Trial Court, the appellant submitted Form-8/ letter dated 21.09.2007 of Superintending Engineer and Chief Electrical Inspector and Form-9/letter dated 13.12.2007/ intimation of compromise vide Annexure-A/3. 7. Under the provisions of Section 152 of the Electricity Act read with Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rules, 2008, parties are not required to compound the case before the Court, Only factum of compromise is required to be intimated to the Court in Form-9 by the authorized officer i.e. Chief Electrical Inspector. 4 8. !n the instant case, parties had entered into compromise. Petitioner had deposited the sum required under Section 152 of the Act. Authorized officer i.e. Chief Electrical Inspector has intimated the fact of compromise in Form-9 which is sufficient compliance of the requirement under Section 152 of the Act read with Rule 10. Special Judge was under obligation to proceed in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 152 of the Act, but he has failed to do so. Consequently, continuance of the proceeding/prosecution would amount to abuse of process and the order/judgment passed by Special Judge is not sustainable. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the offence under Section 379 of IPC and Section 135-A of Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003. 10. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 11. 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, 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. 12. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for 5 compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala