1 2025:CGHC:51353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 415 of 2019 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Assistant Engineer, Sub Division Distribution H. S. Shukla Operation And Maintenance Division Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant / Complainant versus 1 - Narendra Kaushik S/o Late Nakul Koushik Aged About 42 Years R/o Jharradih, Police Station- Balouda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent / Accused (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 15/10/2025 1. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by appellant / complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment dated 07.11.2016 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), District Janjgir-Champa (henceforth referred to as the “trial Court”) in Criminal Case (Electricity) No.73/2015, RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.10.17 17:10:13 +0530 2 whereby the respondent herein /accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 135 (1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 2003”). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on inspection of residential premises of the respondent / accused, it was found that an electric connection bearing service No.1004140924 was provided to him. However, the respondent was found to be consuming electricity in excess of the sanctioned load by illegally hooking electricity through a direct connection from the L.T. line. Based on the aforesaid fact, vigilance team led by R.K. Acharya (PW-1) prepared necessary documents, seized two wires (each measuring 5 meters) vide seizure memo (Ex. P-5), prepared spot map (Ex. P-6), prepared all other required documents and thereafter, filed complaint under Section 135 (1-A) of the Act, 2003 against the respondent before the Special Court. 4. Particulars of the charge were read and explained to the respondent / accused by learned Special Court, in which, he abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 5. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents. The statement of the respondent/ accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in prosecution’s evidence and claimed himself to be innocent and falsely implicated. He has examined one witness in his defence. 6. Learned trial Court, after appreciating evidence adduced by the complainant, acquitted the respondent / accused of the said charge. Being aggrieved, the appellant / complainant has filed instant appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Special 3 Court has acquitted the respondent /accused on the ground that Form-3 was not prepared by vigilance team as provided in the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rules, 2006 (henceforth referred to as “the Rules, 2006”) and without preparing Form-3, Form-4 has been prepared. He further submits that preparation of Form-3 is not required when raid is conducted after sunrise and before sunset, rather it is required only when raid is conducted at night. He next submits that inspection of residential premises of respondent / accused was conducted in presence of Ramabai, who is wife of respondent/accused, despite that, learned Special Court has wrongly held that no investigation has been conducted as to whether Ramabai was wife of respondent or not. He lastly submits that during the raid conducted by the vigilance team, it was clearly found that the respondent was using electricity by illegally hooking electric connection from the L.T. line and these facts have been duly proved by witnesses of power company, despite that, learned Special Court, without any cogent reason, has discarded their evidence, which is perverse and illegal. Hence, he prays that instant appeal may be allowed and the respondent/accused may be convicted for charge levelled against him by setting the impugned judgment passed by the learned Special Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Court below. 10. The appellant/complainant has examined four witnesses to prove its case. R.K. Acharya (PW-1) is executive engineer (vig.), H.S. Shukla (PW- 3) is Assistant Engineer, Ramji Pandit (PW-2) and Vinod Kumar Mahilange (PW-4) are Assistant Lineman. 4 11. Rule 5 (iii) of the Rules, 2006 provides as under:- “5 (iii). In case the inspection, search and seizure of any domestic place or domestic premises is to be carried out as per sub section (2) of Section 135 of the Act, the reasons for doing so shall have to be recorded in Form 3 by the officer not below the rank of Assistant Engineer of Distribution Licensee or Assistant Electrical Inspector of the Chief Electrical Inspectorate. A Panchnama shall also be made in Form 4.” 12. R.K. Acharya (PW-1) was leading vigilance team while alleged raid in the residential premises of the respondent was conducted. He prepared documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-6 filed by complainant, but he has not stated the fact that he prepared Form-3 before the inspection of residential premises of the respondent / accused. 13. Format of Form -3 prescribed in the Rules, 2006 reads thus:- Form 3 [See Rule 5 (3)] I……...(name) (designation) have received complaint/ information from Shri…….S/o……...R/o……../have gone through the consumption records or……….(any other reason) and, therefore, have reason to believe that electrical energy has been/is being or is likely to be used unauthorized in the premises of and it is necessary to enter, inspect, break open, search his place or premises. It is also learnt that the unauthorized use of energy is being/likely to be made in the night and evidences, (devices, instruments, wires, etc) may not be available during day time. I, therefore, believe that despite of being a domestic place/premises, this is a fit case for inspection/search and seizure, if any, in the presence of an adult male member occupying the place/premises during night 5 hours. The team of the following officers/ employees is therefore constituted for raid on a suitable date and time to be decided :- Name of the members of the team : S.No. Name of Designation Signature Date: Place : Signature Copy to :- I. Executive Engineer (O & M)/(City) CSEB……(Area concerned). 14. Perusal of content of Form-3 nowhere shows that it has to be filled up only when raid is conducted after sunset and prior to sunrise i.e. at night, rather, aforesaid form provides that even raid may be conducted at night only in presence of an adult male member of the family. Therefore, contention of counsel for the appellant is not acceptable that Form-3 is required to be filled up only when raid is conducted in the night. 15. In instant case, undisputedly prior to conducting raid in the residential premises of respondent/accused, Form-3 was not prepared by R.K. Acharya (PW-1), who headed the raid, which is procedural lacuna on part of appellant/complainant. 16. R.K. Acharya (PW-1), Ramji Pandit (PW-2) and Vinod Kumar Mahilange (PW-4) have stated in their deposition that, when they arrived at residential premises of respondent/accused, then upon being called, wife of respondent/accused namely; Ramabai came out from the house. She also put signature on Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-6 as representative, but it has not been mentioned in aforesaid documents that what relation she has with the respondent/accused. Respondent/accused has denied in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that his wife’s name is Ramabai. In this regard, Dilip Kumar (DW-1) has stated in his deposition that name of wife of respondent/accused is Sarita Bai. Though he has 6 shown ignorance in his cross-examination as to whether Sarita Bai, who is wife of respondent/accused, used to signed as Ramabai or not, but considering the aforesaid fact, it cannot be conclusively held that Ramabai is wife of the respondent/accused, therefore, the finding recorded by the Special Court that, even though the inspection was conducted in the presence of said Ramabai, it has not been proved by the appellant/complainant that, the lady in whose presence the inspection was conducted, was the representative of the respondent/accused. 17. 17. R.K. Acharya (PW-1), who was heading the vigilance team, has stated in his deposition that while inspection of premises of respondent/accused, they found that respondent was using two heaters, two ceiling fans and two bulbs by taking direct electric connection by hooking from L.T. Line, which was running behind the premises of respondent, which also gets support from deposition of Ramji Pandit (PW-2) and Vinod Kumar Mahilange (PW-4). Whereas as per Panchnama (Ex. P-3) prepared by R.K. Acharya (PW-1), respondent had been provided electric connection by the power company and meter was also installed in his house. It has not been mentioned in Ex. P-3 or any other documents i.e. Ex. P-1, P-2 & P-4 that respondent was using electric power by taking electric current in his house by direct hooking from the L.T. line, rather as per Annexure -P/3, electric current was used by respondent bypassing the electric meter. Thus, the manner in which, unauthorized electricity was used by the respondent/accused is found to be contradictory in complaint /Panchnama (Ex. P-3) and in the deposition of aforesaid witnesses, as such, allegation levelled against the respondent/accused in respect of theft of electric power is found to be doubtful. 18. It is also apt to be noted here that as per complaint filed by complainant, 7 respondent/accused was consuming more electricity than sanctioned load to him, but to substantiate this fact, complainant has not filed any document that what electric load was sanctioned to him. Even any electricity bill issued to respondent/accused has not been filed by the appellant/complainant. Thus since, there is procedural lacuna in respect of non-preparation of Form-3 prior to inspection of residential premises of respondent and also contradictory fact revealed from the case of complainant and deposition of witnesses with regard to the manner in which, alleged electricity was stolen by the respondent and further, it has also not been proved that what was the electric load sanctioned to the respondent/accused to be used by him, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Special Court has not committed any perversity or illegality in acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 135 (1-A) of the Act, 2003, hence, the same is affirmed. 19. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the instant acquittal appeal, hence the same is dismissed. 20. Let copy of this judgment along with record of the Court below be sent back forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar