1 CGHC010000972007 2026:CGHC:27778 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.814 of 2007 Lachchhi Yadav, Age 36 years, S/o Dasru Yadav, R/o Village-Koskatti, P. S. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Distt. Magistrate, Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate appears along with Shri Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Panel Lawyer Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on board 06/07/2026 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22/08/2007 passed in Electric Criminal Case No.24/2006, whereby, the learned Special Judge (Authorized under Section 153(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG), has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant- Lachchhi Yadav has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, on the allegation that during the SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.07.07 10:41:51 +0530 2 inspection made by the Junior Engineer, S. K. Patel on 27/04/2006 at Village Koskatti, Thana Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, it was found that he has taken illegal electric connection while utilizing his holler and flour mill with the aid of 10 HP motor. It is alleged further that the spot inspection (Ex.P-1) was made in presence of three witnesses, namely, Bhagat Ram Gaikwad, Gouri Shankar Yadav and Ram Sahay Dhruv and 10 HP motor as well as 70 meters of PVC wire were seized from his possession in presence of Bhagat Ram Gaikwad and Gouri Shankar Yadav and, based upon the alleged allegation, the appellant has been charged for the said offence, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution and that by considering the fact that the alleged articles, i.e. 10 HP motor and 70 meters of PVC wire were seized from him in presence of aforesaid witnesses, the appellant has, thus, been held guilty for the commission of the alleged crime and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, as mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding the appellant guilty under the alleged offence, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in convicting him as such. While inviting attention to the statement of Bhagat Ram Gaikwad (PW-1) and Gouri Shankar Yadav (PW-2), in whose 3 presence, the alleged inspection was carried out, have, however, not stated anywhere that the appellant has taken illegal electric connection for running his alleged flour and holler mill with the aid of 10 HP motor, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court convicting him as such, deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that during the spot inspection carried out by the Junior Engineer of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Division Pendra Road, namely, S.K. Patel on 27/04/2006, it was revealed that the appellant- Lachchhi Yadav has taken illegal electric connection while utilizing his flour and holler mill with the aid of 10 HP motor and has consumed 1930 units of electricity per month illegally, owing to which, the Department has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.66,085/-. 8. In order to establish the alleged allegation, as to whether the appellant has illegally consumed 1930 units of electricity per month, on 27/04/2006, owing to which, the Department has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.66,085/-, the attesting witnesses, namely, Bhagat Ram Gaikwad and Gouri Shankar Yadav, in whose presence, the alleged spot inspection was made vide Ex.(P-1), were examined as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively, however, both these witnesses have 4 turned hostile without supporting the alleged allegation of theft of electricity to the extent of 1930 units per month, as none of them has stated anywhere that the alleged units of electricity was consumed illegally by the appellant and, even upon declaring them hostile, they failed to support their alleged version recorded vide Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 under Section 161 CrPC. In view thereof, the prosecution has, thus, failed to establish the alleged allegation that on the said fateful day, i.e. on 27/04/2006 at 05.00 P.M., the appellant has taken illegal electric connection and has consumed 1930 units of electricity per month, owing to which, the Department has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.66,085/-. 9. That apart, it reveals from the statements of Bhagat Ram Gaikwad (PW-1) and Gouri Shankar Yadav (PW-2), the alleged 10 HP motor and 70 meters of PVC wire, alleged to have been seized from the spot, was in fact belonging to the house of appellant’s father-Dasru and, the appellant is residing in front of his house and, therefore, it cannot even be said to be seized from him. Pertinently to the noted here further, as revealed from the statement of said Junior Engineer, who conducted the spot inspection on said fateful day, the alleged 70 meters of PVC wire was seized from the place, where the alleged motor was installed, which was 225 to 230 feet away from the electric pole. In view of such circumstances also, it cannot be said that on the said fateful day, the appellant has committed theft of electricity while taking illegal electric connection from the electric pole. 5 10. In view of the aforesaid background, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/08/2007 passed by the Special Judge (Authorized under Section 153(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Electric Criminal Case No.24/2006, thus, deserves to be and, is hereby set-aside and the appellant is acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, the bail bond and sureties stand discharged. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane