1 2025:CGHC:5229 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 126 of 2025 1 - Johan Prasad Kashyap S/o Chandram Kashyap Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khairtal Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Revisioner) ... Applicant versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Executive Engineer P.S. Mahananda (Sanchar And Sudhar) Division Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Brijesh Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29/01/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision is filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (Electricity Act 2003) Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Electricity Case No. 96/2024 whereby 2 the learned Trial Court has framed the charge against the applicant under Section 138(1)(B) of Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant filed the complaint case under Section 138(1)(B) of Electricity Act, 2003 before the learned Special Judge, Electricity Act, 2003, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) stating therein that the applicant has not paid the electricity bill of Rs. 94,070/- and thereby the non-applicant has disconnected the electricity connection of the applicant on 23.11.2023. Thereafter on 28.12.2023, the non- applicant with his team have during the patrolling period, found the applicant has taken illegal connection after disconnecting his electricity connection and using 561 Watts Electricity Energy illegally, therefore non-applicant has given the bill of Rs. 95,631/- including penalty. The notice was issued to the applicant and the applicant appeared before the learned trial Court on 18.09.1014 with his counsel and filed his reply and stated that he has already deposited fine amount of Rs. 5000/- and prayed for time to pay remaining amount. Learned Trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of charge sheet filed by the police, vide its impugned order dated 11.11.2024 framed the charge under Section 138(1)(B) of Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and against the facts 3 and circumstances of the case. He further contended that the learned court ought to have considered the fact that the non- applicant has added the old electricity bill in his complaint which is violation of Section 138(1) of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003) Janjgir has rightly passed the order and the order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of record shows that Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), Janjgir, District-Janjgir Champa, C.G. has framed the charge against the petitioner under Section 138A(1)(B) of the Electricity Act, 2003 dated 11.11.2024. The applicant has not paid the electricity bill of Rs. 94,070/-. Therefore the respondent authority has disconnected the connection on 23.11.2023. Again on 28.12.2023 the Electricity Department searched the premises of the applicant and found that there is illegal connection after disconnecting his electricity and the applicant has used 561 Watts of Electricity Energy illegally, therefore non-applicant has given the bill of Rs. 95,631/- to the applicant upon which the applicant has raised the objection that the Electricity department has included the earlier bill of Rs. 94,070/- which is per se illegal. 7. Since a prima facie case under Section 138(1)(B) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is made out against the applicant, therefore, the 4 objection raised by the applicant before this Court would have been raised before the Trial Court as a defence. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the present criminal revision is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima