1 2025:CGHC:15118 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 409 of 2008 Khagesh Kumar, S/o Dorilal Yadav, aged about 23 years, resident of Purenateli, P.S. Chandrapur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Chandrapur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 28/03/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Janjgir Champa (C.G.), in Criminal Electricity Case No.10/2006 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.04.01 17:32:04 +0530 2 under : Conviction Sentence U/s 135 (a) of Electricity Act 2003 RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default thereof, 3 months RI. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 08.12.2005, Fulranjan Tigga, Junior Engineer of Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Chandrapur, conducted an inspection of the power line in village Purenateli. During the inspection, it was found that Appellant Khagesh Kumar was illegally using electricity by hooking a wire to the main power line and was operating a 5-horsepower motor. Thereafter, a site inspection was conducted, and a panchnama was prepared on the spot. From the scene, the motor and starter were seized. A calculation sheet was prepared regarding the electricity theft, and a written report of the incident was filed at the police station. Based on this report, crime was registered against the Appellant and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against him. 3. So as to hold the Appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses. The statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2008, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that as per 3 the provision of Section 135 (a) of Electricity Act, the imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or both, the appellant has already paid the theft amount and also the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court. Furthermore, the incident is about 20 years old, the appellant is facing the lis since 2005 and he has already deposited the fine amount as well as theft amount, therefore, it is prayed that the fine amount may be enhanced and the sentence of six months for the aforementioned offence may be set-aside in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Fulranjan Tigga (PW-1), Tularam (PW4), Babulal Sidar (PW-5) and calculation sheet (Ex.P.3) which shows the theft of Rs.14,391/-, establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135(a) of Electricity Act. 9. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in December, 2005 about 19 years ago and the appellant is facing the lis since December 2005, Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if imprisonment of 6 months be set- aside by enhancing the fine amount. 10.Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 135 (a) of Electricity Act is maintained. His 4 sentence for the above offence i.e. rigorous imprisonment of 6 months is set-aside and he is only sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs.45,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/- which shall be payable by him within a period of 90 days from today and in default thereof, he shall liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 months. Further, any amount of fine deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted in the amount of fine imposed on him today by this Court. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12.The appellant is on bail. If the fine amount is not deposited within 90 days, the bail bonds of the appellant shall be considered cancelled and the fine amount shall be recovered as per law. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham