1 2025:CGHC:12142 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 259 of 200 8 • Vishal Poptani S/o Shri Mohan Das Poptani, aged about 31 years, R/o Banspara, Dhamtari, Police Station & District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District – Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 11 / 03 /202 5 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2008 passed Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.12 16:05:28 +0530 2 by the learned Special Sessions Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), Dhamtari (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 01/2007 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 135 of Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003 Fine of Rs. 3,39,087, in default of payment of fine S.I. for 6 months. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.11.2005, Executive Engineer (vigilance) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Raipur on the basis of his superior officer’s order went to Risaipara, Dhamtari at the Ice Factory of the appellant, at that time the production is closed. In the presence of Mohan, the team checked the Meter and they found that the seal of the Meter was broken and there was some scratch mark on the Meter, so the Officer seized the Meter and calculated the consumption of electricity as 19.25 H.P., spot inspection panchnama was prepared. In the examination of the meter they found some interruption in the meter and tampering with the paper seal, enquiry report was prepared and given a copy to Mohan Das. Assistant Engineer Shri Ashok Khandelwal has lodged the report against the appellant at the concerned police station for theft of electricity of Rs. 1,13,029 and 3 after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2008, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the learned Court is perverse and not based on any documentary proof. He further submits that it is clear from the evidence of PW-5 Dr. harsh Gautam, Executive Engineer, that on 18.11.2005, when the vigilance team checked the ice factory of the appellant the production work was not going on and only the guard Mohan Das was present and the said Mohan Das was not examined by the prosecution which creates doubt on the prosecution. The conviction of the present appellant is based only on the evidence of PW-5 and PW-8 who are the complainant’s official witnesses and their statements have not been 4 supported by any independent witness. He also submits that the finding recorded by the learned judge regarding the ownership of the ice factory is not based on any documentary evidence. As such, the conviction of the appellant is not proper, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is liable to be acquitted. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8 In the case in hand, the entire proceedings have been conducted by Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Raipur, Dr. Harsh Gautam (PW-5), along with whom Assistant Engineer (Vigilance), S.P. Bhatt (PW-7) was present as the accompanying staff who has clearly supported the prosecution case. Vijay Prakash Khare (PW- 3), (Notary and Advocate) has certified the affidavit Ex.P-3 of the appellant's father Mohandas Poptani. Junior Engineer, B.S. Rajput (PW-4) has stated that he got the FIR (Ex.P-2) registered by giving an application vide Ex.P-4 in the police station. That application was written by Assistant Engineer, Ashok Khandelwal (PW-6), who has supported 5 the prosecution case. The FIR (Ex.P-2) has been registered by Head Constable, Gulab Singh (PW-2). The remaining investigation has been done by Sub Inspector, S.P. Singh (PW-8). He remained unrebutted in cross-examination. As such, the finding of the trial Court convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence and the documents available on record which is not perverse or contrary to the records. 9 In that view of the matter, the trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant who committed the aforesaid offence. Hence, the trial Court is justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the same. 10 Thus, the present criminal appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 11 Records of the trial Court along with the copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu