1 2025:CGHC:18457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 2016 Harkesh Jaiswal S/o Ramkumar Jaiswal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Revatpur, P.S. Rajpur, Distt. Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Rajpur, Distt. Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of Ms. Uttara Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 23.04.2025 1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.') questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.02.2016 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.103/2011, VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.04.30 10:36:55 +0530 2 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence In Default of Payment of Fine Under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 RI for 01 year and fine amount of Rs.1,10,000/- Additional SI for 03 months 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14/10/2011, the Officials of the Electricity Department inspected the premises of the appellant and found that the appellant committed theft of electricity by hooking the same and running the flour mill in an illegal manner and accordingly the Department caused a loss to the tune of Rs.1,05,639/-. 3. On this allegation, the police of Police Station Rajpur, registered FIR against the appellant and conducted investigation and after completion of investigation, the police submitted that the charge-sheet before the competent Court, who in turn committed the same for sessions trial. 4. In order to prove the charges against the appellant (accused), prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellant. 5. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, this 3 appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellant. She further contended that the learned trial Court has committed gross error by convicting the appellant without any material against him. There is no direct evidence against the appellant to prove the alleged act of the appellant. The appellant has not committed any offence and he has no relation with the crime in question. It is further contended that during trial as well as after passing the impugned judgment, the appellant was on bail. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and the impugned judgment (Annexure A- 1) may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the charge levelled against him. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellant, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record of the trial Court and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. Assistant Engineer, Uttar Kumar Dhritlahare (PW-1) has stated in his 4 statement that after giving written notice to the accused-appellant, the flour mill and paddy threshing mill of the accused located in village Revatpur was inspected by the investigation team in his presence. The accused was found to be operating the flour mill and paddy threshing mill by direct hooking 3 phase wire from the low pressure line of the Electricity Board through a 7.50 HP motor. In relation to which, site inspection report Ex.P.02 was prepared on the spot. During the investigation, Panchnama Ex.P.03 was prepared on the spot. After seizing the motor, it was handed over to the accused as Supurdnama. He had prepared a calculation sheet regarding the electricity theft committed by the accused by hooking it directly to the low pressure line. According to which, electricity worth Rs.1,05,639.00/- was stolen by the accused- Harkesh Jaiswal. The report prepared by him is Ex.P-4. 10. Executive Engineer, S.P. Markam (PW-2) has stated that on the date of incident, he was a part of the electrical vigilance team. On the said date, on inspection of the house of the accused in village Revatpur, it was found that the accused was running a paddy threshing threshing mill with a 7.50 HP motor. The accused was running the said threshing mill by direct charging from LT line. Site inspection report Ex.P-2. Wire and starter were seized from the accused. Seizure memo is Ex.P-3. The motor was also seized and was handed over to the accused on delivery. In this regard, delivery memo was prepared which is Ex.P-8. 5 11. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with theft of electricity. The said Section is reproduced herein below :- “135. Theft of Electricity. [(1) Whoever, dishonestly,- (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may be; or (b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or (c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or (d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or (e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both: Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use-- (i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity; 6 (ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity: Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any other source or generating station: Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity: Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorised for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity: Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours from the time of such disconnection: 7 Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment.] (2) [Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be, authorised] in this behalf by the State Government may-- (a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity [has been or is being], used unauthorisedly; (b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which 1 has been, or is being, used for unauthorised use of electricity; (c) examine or seize any books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in his presence. (3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list: Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises. 8 (4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under this Act. 12. It is undisputed fact that on the date of incident, i.e., 14/10/2011, when the Officials of the Electricity Department reached the premises of the appellant for inspection, they found that the appellant committing theft of electricity by hooking the same and running the flour mill in an illegal manner and thereby caused financial loss to the Electricity Department. 13. The appellant has also not stated anything concrete in his defence except that he does not know and that he has been falsely implicated. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and I am of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the trial Court. Since the appellant has theft of electricity, hence, offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is fully proved against the appellant. 14. Since the commission of offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been duly proved, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under the aforesaid offence. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by counsel for the respective parties and provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and particularly, considering the fact that 9 during trial the appellant was on bail and after passing of impugned judgment, he is on bail. 16. From the above analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the said finding recorded by the trial Court is based upon the evidence available on record which is not perverse nor contrary to the records. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to the conviction part. The conviction as awarded by the trial Court against the appellant is hereby affirmed/maintained. 17. Now considering the question of sentence. As the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2016 and thereafter almost 09 years have been elapsed, considering the fact that during trial, the appellant was on bail and after passing of judgment also, he is on bail, there would be no useful purpose to send the appellant in jail as he has suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years and there is no previous antecedents, therefore, set aside the substantial sentence, i.e., RI for one year’s, so this Court finds it appropriate to make payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as fine sentence instead of Rs.1,10,000/-. The said fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of ‘45 days’ from today before the concerned trial Court. If the enhanced fine amount is not 10 deposited by the appellant within the stipulated time, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Ordered accordingly. 18. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 19. Records of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant