1 2026:CGHC:21495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1055 of 2008 • Sahebsingh S/o Amrik Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Occupation- Labour, R/o Netnagar, Police Chowki Jute Mill, Thana Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant :Ms. Indira Tripathi appears through Video conferencing alongwith Mr. Kishan Kumar Yadav, Advocates. For Respondent/State :Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment On Board 07/05/2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 04/12/2008 passed by the Special Judge (under Electricity Act 2003), Raigarh (C.G.) in CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.08 14:56:39 +0530 2 Special Case No.136/2007, whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence Under Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act, 2003 R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 4 months. Under Section 154(5) of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act, 2003 Recovery of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of theft of electricity. 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that the allegation has been made against the appellant that on 11/09/2007, he made direct connection from overhead LT Line illegally and thereby drawing wiring dishonestly upto his welding machine and has, thus, committed the theft of electricity and, based upon which, he has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 135 and 154(5) of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2003”) and, the trial Court after considering the evidence led by the prosecution held the appellant guilty for the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding of the trial Court convicting the appellant under Sections 135 and directed for recovery of sum of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of theft of electricity in exercise of the powers under Section 154(5) of the Act, 2003, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the 3 statement of G.P. Sonwani (PW-1), B. B. Mishra (PW-2) and Shyamlal (PW-5), have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in convicting him, as such. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/ Respondent has supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 6) Perusal of the record would show that though it was alleged by the prosecution, that on 11/09/2007, the appellant has made illegal direct connection from overhead LT Line and drawing the wire dishonestly upto his welding machine but it, however, appears that no welding machine as such was seized during the course of alleged investigation as revealed from the statement of PW-1, namely, G.P. Sonwani (PW-1), the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) and, also from the testimony of B.B. Mishra (PW-2), the Meter Inspector. Even the Panchnama (Ex.P-5), prepared on 28/09/2007 to this effect would reveal the fact that the alleged welding machine was in fact not there on the spot and, the said fact is also corroborated by its attesting witness, namely, Shyamlal (PW-5). 7) Moreover, the alleged inspection was made on 11/09/2007 where the appellant was alleged to have found running the welding machine while consuming illegally the electricity, but no report to this effect was, however, made immediately thereafter and instead the report (Ex.P-8) in this regard was made much after passing of 4 considerable period of more than 7 days, i.e. on 18/09/2007 even without offering any explanation to this effect. 8) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, led by the prosecution, the trial Court has therefore, committed an illegality in convicting the appellant for the commission of the alleged crime. 9) Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04/12/2008, passed by the Special Judge (under Electricity Act 2003), Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Case No.136/2007, is hereby set aside. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall continue for a further period of six months from today in view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant