1 2026:CGHC:10877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 141 of 2017 Laxmi Sahu S/o Parmanand Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jhalmala, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant. versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Through Executive Engineer And Nodal Officer (Electricity Theft) Office (Supply And Maintenance) Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishiraj Pithawa, Dy. GA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 02.03.2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Bilaspur, (CG) in Electricity 2 Criminal Case No.231/2014, whereby appellant stands convicted as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 135 (1-A) of Electricity Act. Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 07.09.2013, the officer/employees of respondent/Company inspected the premises occupied by the appellant and found that appellant has consuming 570 watt electricity for running 3 H.P. floor mill by connecting electric wire without legal demand. The inspection/investigation team submitted his inspection report (panchnama) regarding the alleged illegal connection by the appellant. The respondent-company also claimed civil damages Rs.1,34,908/- and prayed for the punishment to the applicant under the Electricity Act. Based upon which, alleged offence has been registered against the appellant. 3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 06 witnesses, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence not examined any defence witness. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under 3 Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence/material available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and is confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the appellant is a farmer and sole earning member of his family, therefore, he prays that sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court be converted into a sentence of fine only. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned 4 judgment. 9. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only to the conversion of the sentence into a fine, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 10. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for the aforementioned offence/crime. 11. As regards the conversion of the sentence into a fine, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the submission that appellant is a farmer and sole earning member of his family, period of sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant, further the fact that appellant does not have any previous antecedents in similar nature, incident is of the year 2013, i.e. ,more than 5 12 years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is modified and converted into sentence of fine only. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Section 135 (1-A) of the Electricity Act is hereby affirmed, however, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed by the trial Court is converted into a sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellant within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In default of payment of the said fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 13. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-