1 2025:CGHC:20300 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 575 of 2016 Goti Lal Khande S/o Late Brijlal Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Lavsara Rajabhatha, Police Station Baradwar, Civil And Rev. Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through The Assistant Engineer Office, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Sakti, District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Dhruv, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. C.P. Lahrey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 02.05.2025 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 21.04.2016 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Electricity Criminal Case 2 No.227/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence Fine Under Section 135 (A-1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 RI for 06 months Under the civil liability, fine of Rs.91,932/- 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.01.2012, the officer/employee of the electricity department went to village Lavsara Rajabhatha for inspection where they found the accused involved in illegally using the 3396 watt of electricity by connecting direct the line for supply from L.T. Line. A inspection team was formed and thereafter panchnama was conducted. As per the calculation sheet prepared by the team a temporary fine was imposed the bill was handed over to the appellant. 3. After completion of the entire inspection, a complainant case was filed to punish the appellant under the Electricity Act and to receive a sum of Rs. 1,18,307/- from the appellant. 4. The ingredients of the Section 135 (1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 was told to the appellant and also told the punishment under this act which were denied by the appellant and he claimed for trial of the case. 5. In order to prove the charges against the appellant (accused), prosecution examined as many as 04 witnesses. Statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and 3 false implication. The present appellant did not produce any witness in his defense. 6. The trial Court after hearing the parties and taking evidence, the present appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, sentence R.I. for 06 months. It is further ordered that the appellant is under civil liability of Rs. 91,932/-. Hence, this appeal. 7. 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. He further contended the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) erred in convicting the appellant. The judgment, sentence and findings are against the law, facts and evidence of the case. The judgment of conviction against the appellant is very harsh and not according to law. The complainant examined as many as 4 witnesses to establish its case before the learned trial court but there were no independent witness was examined by the complainant. He further contended that the offence against appellant/accused person has not been proved at any corner beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the argument 4 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. 9. 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. 10. Assistant Engineer- H.S. Shukla (PW-2) has stated that on the said date, Assistant Engineer P.K. Sharma had conducted an electrical inspection of Gotilal Khande's premises and sent him the documents related to the inspection. On the basis of these documents, he had prepared a calculation sheet of Rs. 1,18,377 after assessing the theft of electricity. The calculation sheet is Ex.P. 02. On the basis of the calculation sheet, he had issued a temporary penalty assessment order in the name of accused Gotilal in Form 05 and given it to Tirath Ram for serving. He had returned Form 05 by writing a note on his refusal to accept the bill. This Form 05 is Ex.P.-01. The Form 05 was sent by him to the accused through registered post. The receipt of the registered post is Ex.P.-03. After the entire proceedings, after the Executive Engineer, Sakti, appointed him as the Nodal Officer, he has filed a complaint in the Court. 11. Junior Engineer- K.K. Patel (PW-3) has stated that on the said date, he went to Rajabhatha Lavsara for electricity inspection along with Assistant Engineer PK Sharma, Assistant Lineman Sevakram Rathore, Helper Pal Nayak. While investigating, when we reached near Goti Lal's premises, 5 they saw that electricity was being used illegally by hooking directly from the LT line. Then the investigation team was formed on the spot by the investigation officer. The team formation is Ex.P-04. He recognize the accused present in the court. After the formation of the investigation team, the accused himself appeared on being called from the premises, who was questioned in front of him by the investigating officer PK Sharma about the ownership of the poultry farm and the hooking. Then the accused told that the poultry farm was his and he himself had hooked the LT line. The investigation officer himself had given a written notice to the accused. After the notice, they had got the electrical inspection of the premises done. In the notice, the accused was found using 10 bulbs, 05 fans of 200 watts, 01 TV, 02 bulbs of 100 watts and a water pump of total 3396 watts illegally in his poultry farm. In relation to which a panchnama and site inspection report were prepared on the spot by the investigation officer. The panchnama is Ex.P-5. The site inspection report is Ex.P-6. 12. 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, 6 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; (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 7 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: 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; 8 (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. (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. 13. It is undisputed fact that on the date of incident, 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 thereby caused financial loss to the Electricity Department. 14. The appellant has also not stated anything concrete in his defence except that he does not know and that he has been falsely implicated. In my 9 opinion, the above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to one conclusion that it was the accused/appellant who has committed the aforesaid crime. 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 (1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is fully proved against the appellant. 15. Since the commission of offence under Section 135 (1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been duly proved, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant in the aforesaid offence. 16. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident in question took place on 21.01.2012 and now almost 12 years have passed, the appellant has served the jail sentence about 03 months and there is no previous antecedent of the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 17. So far as the civil liability is concerned, the appellant has not deposited any amount towards the civil liability on account of causing electricity theft, whereby the complainant-Power Distribution Company has suffered a loss of Rs.45,966/- and the trial Court has directed to pay an amount of Rs.91,932/- towards the civil liability, therefore, it is directed that 10 complainant-department can recover the said amount from the accused- appellant, as per the law. Ordered accordingly. 18. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant