1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 28 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on :20/11/2025 Judgment Delivered on : 11/12/2025 Chhattisgarh Rajya Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Through Assistant Engineer, (Office), (O&M), Division Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Rajendra Prasad Pandey S/o Bhagwat Prasad Pandey, R/o Sakarra, P.S. and Tahsil - Malkharouda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, CAV Judgment 1. This Acquittal Appeal filed by the appellant / complainant company under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 08.11.2012 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act) Dist. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Special Electricity Case No.349/2010, whereby the learned Special Court acquitted the respondent – Rajendra Prasad Pandey of the charge under Section 135 (A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘ the Electricity Act’). 2. Brief facts as projected by the appellant/complainant company are that PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.12.11 17:32:14 +0530 2 appellant company filed a complaint before the Special Court, Janjgir- Champa alleging that the accused / respondent – Rajendra Prasad Pandey has obtained electricity connection and on 07.09.2010, and inspection was done by the Executive Engineer T.R. Rajwade (PW-04) with other staff i.e. Assistant Lineman Ramji Pandit and Vinod Kumar (PW-02) at the premises of the respondent and on such routine check up, the respondent was found to have used the electricity illegally by hooking the L.T. Line for domestic purpose like using different electrical equipments and has thereby committed theft of electricity. After preparing spot inspection report, Panchnama, seizure memo, spot map, the theft of electricity power used by the accused/respondent was assessed by Assistant Engineer H.S. Shukla (PW-01), causing loss to the appellant company to the tune of Rs.15,679/-. Thereafter, the accused/respondent was served the demand bill for Rs.15,679/- vide Ex.P-5 and ultimately complaint case has been filed against him. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the Special judge under the Electricity Act, Dist. Janjgir-Champa. The respondent abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the complainant company examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents in its support. Statement of accused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In his defence, the respondent examined one witness, namely, Basant Sharma (DW-01). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant company submits that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent herein of the above mentioned charge by recording perverse findings. He 3 further submits that as per Section 135 of the Electricity Act, the Officer was authorised to raid any premises and make inspection report based on the suspicion that the electricity was used unauthorisedly by the person concerned and during such search, it was found that the respondent was using the electricity unauthorisedly by direct hooking and thereby causing loss to the company. He also submits that there is cogent and clinching evidence available on record, more particularly, the testimonies of Executive Engineer T.R. Rajwade (PW-04) and Assistant Lineman Vinod Kumar (PW-02) and despite that, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent without appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective. In addition, he submits that the direction issued by the learned Special Court to the appellant/complainant company regarding the refund of the amount along with interest paid by the accused/respondent towards loss/damages is not in accordance with law as prescribed under Section 154(6) of the Electricity Act. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the appellant company has failed to prove that the premises which was being inspected by them belongs to the accused/respondent, further, no such document was presented by the appellant company which could show that the said premises belongs to the respondent. He further submits that when the alleged inspection was done, at that time, the accused/respondent was not present at the alleged premises. This apart, Basant Sharma (DW-01) who has been cited as the representative of the respondent by the 4 appellant company, has not supported the case of the appellant company and has turned hostile. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. 10. As regards involvement of the respondent – Rajendra Prasad Pandey in the crime in question, T.R. Rajwade (PW-04), Executive Engineer, CSPDCL, in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 07.09.2010, he along with Ramji Pandit, Vinod Kumar (PW-02) and Amar Singh Mandavi had gone to village Sarkara and when they reached to the premises of the respondent, they found that the respondent/accused was using the electricity unauthorisedly by direct hooking the L.T. line and considering it necessary to investigate, he formed an investigation team (Ex.P-2) and prepared panchnama (Ex.P-3). He further deposed that he visited the premises with that team where Subhadra, wife of the accused was standing, before whom the premises was inspected, but she refused to sign on the report given by him. This witness further 5 deposed that he has also seized wire (2 x 10m) vide seizure memo Ex.P-08. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seized any revenue documents nor sought any document with respect to the ownership of the alleged premises which was being inspected, further, he admitted that he had not mentioned about the signatures not put by Subhadra and Basant Sharma (DW-01) on the report made by the investigation team. He further admitted that in Form – 2, there is no mention of Basant Sharma and his relation with the accused Rajendra and Subhadra. Furthermore, this witness admitted that in the spot map (Ex.P-4), the electric tower has not been marked by him, further, the distance between the electric tower and house of the accused has also not been marked. Vinod Kumar (PW-02), Assistant Lineman has also admitted that he cannot say whether the alleged premises which was being inspected, belongs to the accused Rajendra as there is no such documents available in this regard. He further admitted that the house of the accused is about 20 meters away from the electric tower. 11. A bare perusal of the notice for inspection proceedings (Ex.P-7) and seizure memo (Ex.P-8) which bears the signature of Basant Sharma, show that he has been shown as the representative of the accused Rajendra, but, the complainant company has not examined Basant Sharma, however, he has been examined as defence witness (DW-01) by the accused Rajendra, who has stated that the complainant company has not inspected the house of accused in front of him. He further stated that complainant company took his signatures over Ex.P- 7, Ex.P-3, Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-2 in their office itself. This apart, there is no such document available on the record which shows that Basant Sharma was the actual representative of the accused Rajendra. 6 Further, from bare perusal of the evidence of above witnesses, it is evident that the complainant company has not filed any such document which proves that the alleged premises belongs to the accused/respondent. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that at the time of inspection, the accused/respondent was present there. 12. The learned Special Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence, has come to the conclusion that the complainant company has failed to prove that the respondent/accused has been using the electricity unauthorizedly by hooking the L.T. line and as such, acquitted the accused/respondent of the said charge levelled against him. 13. After considering the material available on record as well as the judgment impugned passed by the Special Court, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 135 (A) of the Electricity Act is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14. Insofar as the direction issued by the learned Special Court regarding the refund of the amount towards loss/damages along with interest to the accused/respondent under Section 154(6) of the Electricity Act is concerned, it is appropriate to reproduce the said statutory provision, which reads as follows:- “154: Procedure and power of Special Court:- (6). In case the civil liability so determined finally by the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, shall be 7 refunded by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order of the Special Court together with interest at the prevailing Reserve Bank of India prime lending rate for the period from the date of such deposit till the date of payment.” 15. Upon careful examination of the impugned order, it becomes evident that the learned Special Court has neither finally determined the civil liability nor assessed the amount of loss/damages in accordance with the mandate of Section 154(6) of the Electricity Act. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Special Court in this regard cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. 16. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal by the appellant/CSPDCL is partly allowed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash