1 2025:CGHC:54126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 363 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Incharge Chowki, Anjora Chowki, Police Station- Pulgaon, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Basant Kumar Jain S/o Kundan Lal Jain Aged About 42 Years R/o Rasmada, Presently R/o. New Adarshnagar, Sadak 8, Zone-2, Police Station- Pulgaon, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Dilmen Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rishi Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 06.11.2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the CrPC, challenging the judgment dated 24.3.2018 passed by Special Judge (constituted under the Electricity Act), Durg (CG) in Special Case No.65/2010, whereby the respondent herein/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act 2003’). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 17.5.2005 at about 15.15 hours, Joint Inspection Team of CSPDCL, Durg Range, inspected the meter of M/s. Patel Engineering, who has been provided Meter Service connection No.90.07.006531 in the name of respondent/accused Basant Kumar Jain, BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.11.10 15:20:51 +0530 2 who is said to be the consumer of the same. Meter No.CSE05318 was installed by the Electricity Department in the aforesaid establishment. During inspection, the meter was found to be tampered with, as it was recording 4.72 times less consumption of electricity than actual consumption, thereby there was theft of electricity by the consumer. When calculated, it was found that loss of Rs.2,60,198/- was caused by the said consumer to the Electricity Department. Necessary panchnama pertaining to the seizure of electric meter was prepared. Electric meter was seized, electric connection provided to the respondent/accused was disconnected and complaint was made in the Police Station Pulgaon, Distt. Durg, based on which, FIR was lodged against the respondent/accused. Electric meter was seized vide seizure memo Ex- P/5, meter reading book was seized vide seizure memo Ex-P/6 and statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 379 IPC and Section 135(1) of the Act 2003 was filed against the respondent/accused. 3. The learned Special Court, framed charge under Section 135 of the Act 2003 and explained to the respondent/accused, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. Statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, in which he denied all the incriminating circumstance appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, claiming himself to be innocent and falsely implicated. The respondent/accused has examined three witnesses in his defence. 5. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Special Court acquitted the respondent/accused on the ground that 3 panchnama has not been prepared in the presence of any independent witnesses, inspection was also carried out without service of notice to the witnesses and the alleged inspection report of tampering of the meter, has not been proved. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case, therefore, the learned Special Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the said charge. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred instant appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submit that the prosecution has examined seven witnesses of Power Distribution Company (CSPDCL), including officers, who had inspected the premises of the respondent/accused and found that the meter installed in the establishment of the respondent/accused was tampered with. They have proved inspection report, panchnama, meter inspection report and billing particulars, thus, the witnesses have proved that the meter installed in the establishment of the respondent/accused was tampered with by respondent/accused, who was the consumer of the same. Despite that, the respondent/accused has been acquitted on trivial ground, therefore, he prays that the appeal may be allowed and the respondent/accused may be convicted for the said offence by setting aside impugned judgment of acquittal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record along with record of the Special Court. 9. Executive Engineer (Vigilance) Rambali Singh (PW-1), has stated in his deposition that on 17.5.2005 when the meter installed in the establishment of the respondent/accused was inspected, it was found that the meter was recording 1/5 of the total consumption of electricity, which was 4 significantly less than the actual consumption, to which panchnama (Ex-P/1) was prepared and the meter was seized for its testing in testing laboratory. He has further stated that after returning to the office, he prepared billing statement regarding the electricity consumption by the accused vide Ex-P/2 and according to which, the accused had committed electricity theft worth Rs.2,60,198/-. He has further stated that the meter was examined, in which it was found that ‘extra resistance’ was installed in that meter. 10. Junior Engineer Ajit Kumar Bijoura (PW-2) was witness of seizure memo (Ex-P/6), under which the alleged meter was seized by the police. Executive Engineer Omprakash Bharadwaj (PW-3) was also the witness of seizure memo Ex-P/5 and Ex-P/6, under which the alleged meter and meter reading book were seized. Sub-Inspector Manharan Banafar (PW-4) had lodged FIR (Ex-P/4) on the basis of written complaint (Ex-P/3) made by Rambali Singh (PW-1). Head Constable Dileshwar Prasad Shukla (PW-5) of Police Chouki Anjora, seized the meter reading book vide Ex-P/6 and prepared spot map (Ex-P/9). VK Mahalas, Asst. Engineer was the member of vigilance team and he has supported the deposition of PW-1. 11. The overall case of the prosecution was that the meter installed at the establishment of respondent/accused was tampered with. Some ‘extra resistance’ was installed in the meter, therefore, the meter was showing less consumption of electricity instead of actual consumption, thereby, electricity was being stolen by the consumer/respondent/accused. The witnesses examined by the prosecution were mainly PW-1 and PW-6, the members of the Inspection team, who had inspected the meter on 17.5.2005. Though they have stated in their deposition that the meter was found to be tampered with, but whether it was tampered with or not, could have been proved by proving inspection report of the said electric meter from the testing laboratory. 5 In the instant case, inspection report of the alleged meter has been filed vide Ex-P/9, but the same has not been proved by examining the person, who examined said meter at the testing laboratory. 12. The crucial fact that the prosecution had to prove was the alleged meter tampering, which would have revealed whether the meter was showing less power consumption or not. But since, the inspection report (Ex-P/9) has not been proved by the prosecution by examining the person, who examined the meter in the testing laboratory, therefore, allegation levelled against the respondent/accused cannot be held proved that the meter installed in the establishment of the respondent/accused was found to be tampered with and it was showing less consumption of electricity than the actual consumption, thereby electricity was being stolen by the consumer/respondent/accused by tampering the meter. 13. The learned Special Court has considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution meticulously and thereafter recorded its finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. After going through evidence adduced by the prosecution, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Court acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 135 of the Act 2003, hence, the same is affirmed. 14. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant acquittal appeal, hence the same is dismissed. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of the Court below be sent back forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini