1 2025:CGHC:39830 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 618 of 2008 Moti Ram Miri, S/o Shri Atmaram, aged about 35 years, R/o Village- Hardi, Police Station Baloda, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 08-08-2025 Challenge in the present appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 26th June, 2008 passed by the Special Judge, Janjgir, Distt.Janjgir-Champa in Criminal (Electricity) Case No.19/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Sections 135A of Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for three months. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the course of inspection by the team of officials of CSEB, Janjgir on 5.11.2007 at 2 Village-Hardi, the accused/appellant was found running welding machine in his shop by illegally hooking a wire with the main electric line. Spot inspection report, panchanama & spot map were accordingly prepared, wire of the accused was seized and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 135A of Electricity Act against the accused which was denied by him and he prayed for trial. 03. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 06 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in his defence. 04. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the material placed on record, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset would submit that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the quantum of the sentence only. He submits that the appellant has been jail sentenced of six months’ RI, the offence is punishable with jail sentence or fine or both, the incident took place in the year 2007 when 3 he was 35 years of age, at present he is about 60 years, he has deposited the entire fine amount and therefore, the sentence awarded by learned trial Court may be modified and he be sentenced to the fine amount only. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court upon minute examination and appreciation of the overall evidence on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the appellant was charged under Section 135A of Electricity Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Though the appellant is not pressing this appeal on merits, however, it is clear from the statements of PW-1 RK Minj, PW-2 Umend Kumar Sonwani, PW-3 Satyaprakash Mahilang, PW-4 LN Iranki, PW-5 Santram and PW-6 NS Rajput that during inspection by the team of officials of CSEB on 5.11.2007, it was found that the accused/appellant by illegally hooking a wire with the main electric line was running 4 welding machine in his shop. Accordingly the team seized 12 meters wire and other articles. The accused/appellant could not elicit anything from these witnesses to discredit their evidence. Being so, learned trial Court rightly convicted him under Section 135A of the Electricity Act. 09. As regards the sentence, admittedly the incident took place in 2007, the appellant is at present about 55 years of age, he has deposited the entire fine amount, the offence u/s 135A of the Electricity Act is punishable with imprisonment or fine or both, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the jail sentence awarded by learned trial Court is set aside and instead the accused is sentenced to the fine amount only. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the accused/appellant u/s 135A of the Electricity Act, the jail sentence imposed on him by learned trial Court is hereby set aside. However, the fine imposed on him with default sentence by learned trial Court is maintained. He is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.08.12 16:15:46 +0530