1 2025:CGHC:59460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1817 of 2023 1 - Satrughan Yadav S/o Late Lachhiram Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Shiv Mandir, Sitamani, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, Advocate For State / Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 08/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Korba, District Korba, (CG) (henceforth referred to as the “Special Court”) in Special Criminal (Electricity Act) Case No.23/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 2003”) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,31,817/- (3 times of amount of value of electric theft), and in default thereof, to RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.12.17 16:53:23 +0530 2 undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that under the direction of Assistant Engineer Tejram Kosriya, on 21.07.2020, Junior Engineer / complainant Chandra Kumar Rathore, who was leading the vigilance team, conducted a raid at the residential house of appellant / accused. During the raid, the appellant was found stealing electricity by illegal hooking, although his regular electric connection was already disconnected from the pole, despite that, he was using electricity through a white-coloured P.V.C. wire by illegal hooking. The raid was conducted in the presence of appellant. Spot inspection report, panchnama, spot map were prepared. The said P.V.C. wire used for illegal hooking was seized and handed over the same to the appellant / consumer vide (Ex.P-5). Thereafter, vide covering memo (Ex.P-10), an FIR (Ex.P-11) was lodged against the appellant for the offence under Section 135 of the Act, 2003 in Police Station, City Kotwali, Korba, District Korba (CG). After completion of investigation, a charge sheet for aforesaid offence was filed against the appellant before the Special Court. 3. Learned Special Judge framed charge under Section 135 of the Act, 2003 against the appellant / accused, who abjured his guilt and entered into trial. 4. So as to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The statement of the appellant / accused under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded, in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in prosecution’s evidence and claimed innocence and false implication. In his statement u/S 313 of the CrPC, he has further stated that in the year 2019, during his absence, officials of the Electricity Department conducted a raid at his 3 house and instructed his daughter-in-law (बहू) to send him to their office, where they obtained signature of appellant in some documents and raised a demand letter of Rs.2,14,000/-, which he challenged by filing writ petition, as such, the officials of the Electricity Department have made instant false case against him. The appellant /accused has examined one witness namely Vivek Gupta (DW-1) in his defence. 5. Learned Special Court, after appreciating evidence adduced by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed instant appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the case of prosecution that the electric connection of appellant’s house was disconnected from the pole, despite that, he was allegedly using electricity by illegal hooking; however, the prosecution has not stated that from where the alleged illegal hooking was made. He further submits that, in their deposition, the departmental witnesses have created an entirely new fact by saying that the illegal hooking was done by the appellant from the service connection provided to his neighbour Mahendra Gupta, but neither his statement was recorded nor his signature was obtained in any of the document prepared by the officials of the Electricity Department, despite that, the appellant has been convicted by the Special Court, which is completely perverse to the evidence available on record and case of the prosecution. Hence, he prays that the instant appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the said charge levelled against him by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Special Court. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the prosecution witnesses 4 have proved their case and after due appreciation of evidence, the appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgment, hence the appeal is liable to be rejected. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. Chandra Kumar Rathore (PW-1), Junior Engineer, led the vigilance team. Harish Rathore (PW-2), Assistant Lineman, was a member of the vigilance team. Radheshyam Sahu (PW-3) and Manish Kumar Kori (PW-4) are said to be independent witnesses. Tejram Kosriya (PW-5), Assistant Engineer, under whose instruction the alleged raid was conducted. Lalan patel (PW-6), Sub- Inspector, is the investigating officer of instant case. 10. Provisions for inspection of the electric connection of any residential house have been provided in the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rules, 2006 (henceforth referred to as “the Rules, 2006”). 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.” 11. In instant case, Junior Engineer Chandra Kumar Rathore (PW-1) was leading the vigilance team that conducted the raid at residential house of the appellant. He prepared Form-2 (Ex.P-1), spot inspection report (Ex.P- 2), panchnama (Ex.P-3), seizure memo & supurdgi patrak (Ex.P-5) and 5 Provisional Bill (Ex.P-9). Thereafter, vide covering memo (Ex.P-10), he lodged the FIR (Ex.P-11). A perusal of aforesaid documents shows that he has not stated that he prepared Form-3 prior to the inspection of residential premises of the appellant / accused. 12. 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 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). 13. Perusal of contents of Form-3 shows that the reasons to believe with 6 regard to theft of electric energy by the alleged person ought to have been recorded, which is not found to be recorded in instant case in Form-3, as has been provided in Rule 5 (iii) of the Rules, 2006. 14. As per the case of prosecution and spot inspection report (Ex.P-2), the electric connection of the appellant’s house was disconnected from the pole prior to the instant raid, despite that, the appellant was using electricity through illegal hooking. It has not been mentioned in documents Ex.P-1, P-2, P-3 & P-5 that as to the manner in which, alleged illegal hooking was made, but Junior Engineer Chandra Kumar Rathore (PW-1) and Asstt. Lineman Harish Rathore (PW-2) have stated in their deposition that the appellant was using electricity by illegal hooking from the service connection of his neighbour, therefore, when alleged illegal hooking from the said service connection of his neighbour was disconnected, then whole electric power of house of appellant was get off but this fact has not been mentioned in spot inspection report (Ex.P-2) and other documents i.e. Ex.P-1, P-3 & P-5 prepared by Chandra Kumar Rathore (PW-1). Moreover, if appellant was using electricity by illegal hooking from service connection of his neighbour, who is said to be Mahendra Gupta, then it ought to have been specifically mentioned in spot inspection report and other documents. Whereas aforesaid fact does not get support from independent witnesses Radheshyam Sahu (PW-3) and Manish Kumar Kori (PW-4). Investigating officer Lalan Patel (PW-6) has also admitted in para 5 of his cross-examination that he has not taken any statement of Mahendra Gupta with regard to aforesaid fact. 15. As per seizure memo and supurdgi patrak (Ex.P-5), alleged white- coloured P.V.C. wire, by which the appellant is said to have made illegal hooking, was seized, and subsequently, it was handed over to him but 7 supurdgi patrak prepared by Chandra Kumar Rathore (PW-1) does not contain appellant’s signature. It was also not seized by the police during investigation. 16. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the necessary provisions prescribed to be followed under the Rules, 2006 have not been complied with. Further, facts of the prosecution case reflected from the documents prepared by the officials of the Electricity Department, and the facts projected by them in their Court statements, are highly contradictory. Therefore, it is not found proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was using electricity through the alleged illegal hooking. Hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Special Court deserves to be set-aside. 17. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. Conviction and fine sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused by the impugned judgment under Section 135 of the Act, 2003 are set aside/quashed and he is acquitted of the said charge levelled against him. 18. The appellant is said to be on bail. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 19. Record of the concerned Court below along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar