1 2025:CGHC:52728 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1091 of 2008 1 - Heera Prasad Sahu, S/o Harish Chandra Sahu, aged 40 years, R/o Gram Jaijaipur, PS Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Distt.-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 29/10/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Electricity Criminal Case No.10/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 135-A of Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo RI for Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 6 months and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of incident 19.4.2007 Executive Engineer Vigelence Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Janjgir R.K. Minj along with his companions went to Jaijaipur and all of a sudden had a inspection. In inspection it was found that accused in his building was using without Meter a Machine of 18 Horsepower in Ice Factory. Thereafter Panchanama was made, Aluminium Wire was seized from accused and a complaint case u/s 135 A Electricity Act was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she is not pressing this appeal on merits. She further submits that the appellant is a senior citizen and he has already deposited fine amount before the learned Trial Court and the incident took place in the year 2007, this appeal is pending since 2008, the appellant has never misused the liberty granted by this Court, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 135-A of Electricity Act against the appellant. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. However, learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing this appeal on merits, but looking to the statements of Rajeshwar Minj, Executive Engineer (PW-1), Vinod Kumar Mahilange (PW-2) Lineman, Dhanauram (PW-3) and V. R. Maurya (PW-4) and the document filed by the prosecution particularly vide Ex-P/4, it is clear that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 135-A of the Electricity Act. 7. As regards sentence, it is clear that the the incident took place in the year 2007, this appeal is pending since 2008 and presently the appellant is senior citizen and he has never misused the liberty granted by this Court and the fact that the punishment under Section 135-A of the Electricity Act is imprisonment or fine or both and the appellant has already deposited fine amount of Rs.2,000/- before the learned Trial Court, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the sentence imposed upon the appellant is set aside and he is sentenced to the fine amount only 4 and he has already paid the fine amount. It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 9. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 10. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala