1 2025:CGHC:46378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1518 of 2023 Inder Sao S/o Samaru Sao, Aged About 76 Years R/o Village- Gadh- Umariya, Police Station Jutmill, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (A Liable Company of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board), Through R.K. Arille, Assistant Engineer (Distribution) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Kodatarai, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 10.09.2025 1. Today, though the present appeal has been listed for hearing on IA No.01 of 2023, which is application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence as well as fine amount and grant of bail, but with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is being heard finally. 2. Accordingly, IA No. 01 of 2023 stands disposed of. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case under the Electricity Act No. 134/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. Fine of Rs. 6,24,072/-, in default of payment of fine 06 months R.I. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the respondent filed a complaint alleging that the appellant was provided with an electricity connection bearing Service Connection No. 1004302483. On 01.07.2017, the complainant, along with other staff members, conducted an inspection at the appellant’s premises, during which it was found that the appellant had bypassed the electricity meter and was unauthorizedly consuming electricity. Upon assessment, it was determined that the appellant had consumed a total of 15,058 units of electricity, causing a loss of Rs. 2,08,024/- to the department. Despite the demand, the appellant failed to pay the said amount. Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint case against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, on behalf of the complainant, Assistant Engineer Rajendra Kumar Arille (PW- 3 01) and Lineman Shambhunath Painkara (PW-02) were examined in support of the complaint. During their testimony, the following documentary evidence was produced and proved: Panchnama (Ex.P-01), Notice issued to the accused for cooperating in the inspection proceedings (Ex.P-02), Panchnama Form- 4 (Ex.P-03), Site Inspection Report (Ex.P-04), Seizure Memo (Ex.P-05), Map and Wiring Diagram (Ex.P-06), Billing Details (Ex.P-07), and Authorization Letter for filing the complaint (Ex.P-08). 6. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which he denied all allegations and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 3 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment dated 17.07.2023 is perverse, erroneous, and contrary to the law as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to produce any evidence to establish that the premises where the electricity was allegedly being consumed unauthorizedly by way of hooking was either owned or possessed by the appellant, and without such proof, the conviction under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that neither panchnama was prepared in the presence of the appellant or his authorized representative, nor 4 were the signatures of any independent witnesses obtained on the alleged panchnama, which makes the entire inspection proceedings highly suspicious. The complainant (PW-1) also failed to explain or produce any method of calculation for arriving at the bill amount of Rs. 2,08,024/-, and there are major contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is further contended that there is no material evidence on record to justify the conviction of the appellant. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are baseless, perverse, and contrary to the evidence and documents on record, and thus, deserve to be quashed. It is also submitted that the appellant is 76 years of age, a senior citizen, and the sentence imposed upon him is harsh, excessive, and disproportionate to the alleged act. He also submits that the appellant has already been deposited the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- before the CSEB/respondehnt as directed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 03.08.2023. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court is unsustainable and liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that Rajendra Kumar Arille (PW-1) who is the eye witness/complainant of the incident and Shambhunath Painkara (P.W.-02), who is a Lineman, have categorically proved the unauthorized consumption of electricity by the appellant, and the 5 trial Court after appreciating evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned order, in which no interference is sought for. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. P.W.-01, Rajendra Kumar Arille, Assistant Engineer, deposed that on 01.07.2017, he along with Executive Engineer A.K. Sharma and staff members Rameshwar Prasad Rathore and Shambhunath Painkara went to the premises of the accused Inder Sao at Village Garh-Umariya to inspect the electricity connection. Prior to the inspection, as directed by the Executive Engineer, he prepared a Panchnama (Ex. P-01) regarding the formation of the inspection team and identified his own signatures and those of A.K. Sharma on it. He further stated that a written notice (Ex. P-02) was issued to the accused to cooperate in the inspection. During the inspection, it was found that the accused had bypassed the meter by tampering with the service wire, thereby unauthorizedly consuming electricity. As per directions, two pieces of black PVC wire were cut and seized. He also prepared the Panchnama (Ex. P-03), Site Inspection Report (Ex. P-04), Seizure Memo (Ex. P-05), and Site Map with Wiring Diagram (Ex. P-06), identifying his and A.K. Sharma’s signatures on these documents. 11. P.W.-02, Shambhunath Painkara, Lineman, corroborated the testimony of PW-01 and stated that the entire action was carried out under the instructions of the Executive Engineer. Both witnesses were cross-examined, but their statements remained unshaken, thereby supporting the prosecution case. 6 12. From perusal of the records, it transpires that both PW-01, Rajendra Kumar Arille (Assistant Engineer) and PW-02, Shambhunath Painkara (Lineman) have given clear and consistent testimonies regarding the inspection conducted on 01.07.2017, during which they found that the electricity meter at the appellant’s premises had been bypassed by tampering with the service wire to consume electricity illegally. The inspection documents, including the Panchnama (Ex. P-01), Site Inspection Report (Ex. P-04), and Seizure Memo (Ex. P-05), were duly prepared and proved by the prosecution witnesses, who also identified their signatures. The defence failed to bring on record any credible evidence to discredit these documents or to establish any enmity or ulterior motive on the part of the officials. During cross-examination, both witnesses remained steadfast, and nothing substantial could be elicited to cast doubt on their testimony. Thus, their evidence inspires confidence and proves beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was engaged in unauthorized consumption of electricity, causing loss to the department and the trial Court after considering the material available on record, has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 and has appropriately sentenced the accused was punished with a fine of Rs. 6,24,072/- for the offence under section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003, and in default of payment of fine 06 months R.I. 13. I am of the view that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity by imposing a fine amount of Rs.6,24,072 /- for the 7 offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in default of payment of fine 06 months R.I. 14. Now considering the question of sentence, on a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the appellant as the appellant has already been deposited the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- before the CSEB/respondent pursuant to the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to deposit the remaining balance fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court and prays for some time to pay the same. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the age of the appellant, who is a 76 year old senior citizen, it is directed that the appellant shall deposit the remaining balance fine amount imposed upon him by the learned trial Court, within a period of four months from today, failing which, the appellant shall undergo the sentence as has been awarded by the learned trial Court. 16. The criminal appeal stands disposed of. 17. A certified copy of this order along with the trial Court record be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan