1 CRA No.1535 of 2018 2025:CGHC:27440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1535 of 2018 Khemsingh Rajput S/o Kaushatubhmani Rajput Aged About 73 Years R/o Jawahar Colony Kharsiya Police Station And Tahsil Kharsiya District Raigaarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Company Limited Through Its A. M. Kujur Junior Engineer C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited Kharsiya (City) District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr.Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 24 .06.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge (Under Electricity Act, 2003), Raigarh, District:Raigarh, C.G. Special AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.25 16:48:55 +0530 2 Criminal Case(under Electricity Act) No.860/2009, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted Under Section 135 of the Electricity Act sentenced him to undergo Till Rising of the Court (TRC) and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs.2,46,207/-(3-times of Rs.82069/-) with default stipulation . According to the appellant, he has already deposited the said fine amount. The appellant also convicted under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, in which, out of the fine amount Rs.82,069/- deposit to Chhattisgarh State Distribution Company, Kharsiya(City), and no needs to civil liabilities separately. 2. Brief facts of the case is that on 30/05/2009, the Vigilance team of A.M. Kujur Junior Engineer & three other employees, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited sudden inspected at Jawahar Colony Kharsiya, where they found illegal connection of electricity in the campus of accused where 4010 watt for house appliances were used & for provisional store shop of the accused were used about 173 watt electricity total of Rs.82069/- electricity were used without permission, thereafter, Inspection Officer prepared panchanama, seizure report & spot map and subsequently, offence was registered under Electricity Act against the appellant/accuse. 3. The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as 3 many as 3 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him 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 accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is financially weak person and unable to pay a huge amount of fine of Rs.2,46,207/-(3 times of Rs.82,069/-). He submits that the appellant was not hooking any electricity wire, the Inspection Officer seized only 5 meter service wire, which is impossible to connect from the distance of 100 feet of from his residential house. He further submits that the appellant is old age person aged about 78 years and he fully dependent upon his pension, hence, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that there are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellant his guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment against the appellant which does not require for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through 4 the records with utmost circumspection. 8. A.M. Kujur (PW-3), Junior Engineer, has stated that on 30.05.2009, when he, along with Narayan Gupta(Lineman), Ramadhar Sahu(Assistant Lineman) and Lallu Patel(Line Inspector), inspected the electricity connection of the premises of accused premises in Jawahar Colony, the accused was found using CFL, one piece fridge, half HP water pump, fan, cooler, heater and TV in the accused's premises by direct hooking and using electricity for domestic and commercial purposes. In this regard, Panchnama Ex. P-1 was prepared by him on the spot itself. His signature is on parts A to A of Ex.P-1 and signature of Rukmani Bai, who was present on the spot, is on part B to B. On the spot, yellow coloured PVC wire of 05 meter 06 mm and blue, yellow, black coloured PVC wire of 04 mm were seized as per seizure memo Ex.P-2 and a site map vide Ex.P-3 was prepared. Billing statement Exhibit P4 was prepared in which the compensation amount for commercial use was 173 watts, Rs. 5,992/- and for domestic use of 4010 watts, the compensation amount was of Rs. 76,077/-, which is total to Rs. 82,069/-. His signature is on the seizure memo Ex.P-2. 9. Ramadhar Sahu (PW-1), Assistant Lineman has stated that on 30/05/2009, he went to inspect the premises of accused situated in village Jawahar Colony Kharsia along with A.M. Kujur, Junior Engineer. The accused was found stealing electricity by using electricity in his commercial premises by hooking directly from LT line without getting any legal electricity connection from the 5 electricity company. Panchnama was prepared by the Junior Engineer on the spot. PVC wire was seized and seizure letter and spot map were prepared. Similar statement was given by the PW-2, Lallu Patel, Line Inspector. 10. Upon bare perusal of the material available on record, it is quite vivid that while preparing the panchnama Ex.P-1, the wife of the appellant namely Smt. Rukmani Bai was very much present and she herself put her signature on the said panchnama, therefore, the plea taken by the appellant that during the course of panchnama, no independent witness was present is not sustainable. It is also noteworthy to mention here that in the seizure memo Ex.P-2, also the wife of the appellant put her signature. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Officials of the Electricity Company has prepared the panchnama and the spot inspection report after following the due process of law. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. However, looking to the age of the appellant i.e. more than 85 years as on date and the matter is of the year 2009, the fine amount of Rs. 2,46,207/- is reduced to Rs.1,25,000/- 11. As a result, the Criminal appeal is allowed in part. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep