1 2026:CGHC:2246 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 19.11.2025 14.01.2026 -- 14.01.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1472 of 2015 Judgment Reserved on : 19.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 14.01.2026  Basant Tiwari, S/o Late Nakchhed Tiwari, aged about 70 years, R/o Village – Madwani, Police Station Hirri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus  Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through – Its Anupam Sarkar, Executive Engineer, C.G. State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent 2 For Appellant : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (C A V Judgment) 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge/1st Additional Sessions Judge (under Section 153(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.90/2012 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 135 and 154(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 & sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo S.I. for 15 days and to pay civil liability of Rs. 55,564/- twice (i.e. Rs.1,11,128/-), respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.08.2011, during inspection by Vigilance Officer Mr. N.K. Rai, Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer Milind Pandey, Security Guard Mr. B.P. Mishra and Jagdish Yadav, it was found that the accused/appellant was running 7.5 HP three phase motor irrigation pump directly in his premises. During investigation, Ashish Tiwari, son of accused/appellant was present as his representative, and in his presence, 20 3 meters blue colour wire was seized and spot panchanama was accordingly prepared vide Ex.P-1. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2. Spot inspection report was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Thereafter, a written report of theft of electricity was made in Police Station – Hirri. After assessing the damage caused to the complainant, an electricity bill of Rs.55,564/- was issued to the accused/appellant. Due to the accused/appellant’s failure to pay the electricity bill, the complainant/respondent filed a complaint case against the accused/appellant to the effect that the accused/appellant committed an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. After completing the usual investigation, charge sheet under the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003 was filed against the accused/appellant before the jurisdictional Court. 3. After filing of the charge sheet, the Trial Court framed the charges against accused/appellant under Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Act, 2003. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing 4 against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad, improper, incorrect and illegal. There is no prima-facie case to connect the appellant in the crime in question. It has been contended by learned counsel that Gendram (PW-7) is the only independent witness but he has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Further, the investigating officer did not seize any motor pump from the possession of the accused/appellant, as such, the prosecution story is vague and against the law. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant to prove his complicity in the case. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. Therefore, the appellant deserves for acquittal setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has 5 been argued by the learned State counsel that conviction of the accused/appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted him under Sections 135 and 154(5) of the Electricity Act. 10. Narayan Prasad Sahu (PW-1), Line Man, D.P. Mishra (PW- 2), Security Guard, N.K. Rai (PW-3), Executive Engineer and Milind Pandey (PW-4), Assistant Engineer, all have stated in their examination-in-chief that on 09.08.2011, while they were conducting inspection of electricity connection, they found that the accused/appellant was running motor pump illegally by hooking electric wire directly. 11. Milind Pandey (PW-4) has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused/appellant was not present at the spot and in this case, he has not produced any document with regard to ownership/title of the land of the accused/appellant. He has also admitted that in spot map (Ex.P-2), there is no 6 mention of houses nearby the spot. 12. Gendram (PW-7) is the village Kotwar. He has admitted his signature in Panchanama (Ex.P-1) on ‘A to A’ part, but he denied any proceeding before him. The prosecution has declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestion of prosecution. 13. Upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it emerges that the prosecution witnesses have merely stated that a water pump was seized from a field allegedly belonging to the accused/appellant. However, no documentary evidence whatsoever has been produced by the prosecution to establish the ownership or title of the said land in favour of the accused/appellant. In the absence of such foundational evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the place from where the alleged motor pump was seized was in possession or control of the accused/appellant. Further, it has come in the consistent testimony of all the prosecution witnesses that at the time of inspection, the accused/appellant was not present at the spot. It is also admitted by them that the signatures of the accused/appellant were not obtained on any of the documents prepared during or after the inspection, including 7 the seizure memo and inspection report. This omission assumes significance, as it casts a serious doubt on the fairness and credibility of the alleged inspection and seizure proceedings. That apart, the independent witness Gendram (PW-7), who was examined to lend corroboration to the prosecution case, has not supported the prosecution version and has turned hostile. In the absence of support from an independent witness, the prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of official witnesses, which, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not inspire confidence. 14. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused/appellant, was required to conclusively establish that the field from which the alleged motor pump was seized, and from where electricity was allegedly being used through direct hooking, belonged to or was under the control of the accused/appellant. The prosecution has failed to discharge this burden. Mere seizure of a motor pump from a field, without proof of ownership or possession, cannot fasten criminal liability upon the accused/appellant. 15. The learned Trial Court, while recording the finding of conviction, failed to appreciate these vital infirmities in the 8 prosecution case, particularly the absence of documentary proof of ownership, the admitted non-presence of the accused/appellant at the spot, and the lack of corroboration from an independent witness. 16. In view of the aforesaid deficiencies and contradictions in the prosecution evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused/appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is, therefore, unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside, resulting in acquittal of the accused/appellant. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him extending benefit of doubt. 18. In the present case, the appellant was sentenced only to payment of fine, with a default sentence of 15 days’ simple imprisonment. The record reveals that the appellant has deposited the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, but has not deposited the civil liability amount of Rs.55,564/- assessed under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act. Since the sentence awarded is 9 only of fine and the appellant has already complied with the penal fine component, he continues to remain out on bail. Since, this Court has allowed the appeal of the accused/appellant, the fine amount so deposited, be refunded to him after due verification by the concerned Trial Court. 19. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (new section 481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.01.14 15:16:05 +0530