1 2026:CGHC:17581 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 17.03.2026 17.04.2026 -- 17.04.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 17.03.2026 Judgment delivered on : 17.04.2026 CRA No. 1150 of 2007 1 - Johat Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-01-2021. 1.1 - Ainek Ram Sahu S/o Late Johat Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sirsida, P.S. And Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtrari Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant : Mr. Pranav Tiwari appears on behalf of Mr. Prashant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellant, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2007, passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 12/2007, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and imposed the following sentence:- Conviction Sentence U/s. 135(a) of Electricity Act, 2003 Fine of Rs. 1,44,024.00/- in default of payment of fine amount to undergo SI for 6 months 2. According to the prosecution, on 01.02.2006, Shri S.K. Chakraborty, Executive Engineer (Vigilance), Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, received secret telephonic information that electricity theft was being committed using a magnet at the Huller Mill of accused Johtaram Sahu, situated in Village Sirsida under Kurud Distribution Centre. Acting on this information, Shri Chakraborty, along with his team, conducted an inspection at the said premises. During inspection, it was found that the electric meter connections were tampered, as the R-phase was reversed, 3 Due to this manipulation, the meter was not correctly recording electricity consumption, There were signs of tampering on the meter and the accused was allegedly stealing electricity by using a magnet, which was produced by his son, Virendra Sahu. A spot inspection panchnama was prepared in the presence of witnesses and the accused signed the same. The meter and connected wires were seized and handed over to the Junior Engineer. Thereafter, Junior Engineer Neelkanth Chandrakar lodged a complaint at Police Station Kurud, on the basis of which an FIR was registered. During investigation: A site map was prepared, Witness statements were recorded, The accused was arrested, and Relevant documents and seized articles were taken into custody. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 10.07.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, against the accused for offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 135/39 of the Electricity Act. Since the matter was triable by a Special Court, it was committed and transferred to the Special Court (Electricity Act). The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence 4 were put to him. The accused/appellant denied the same in toto, pleaded innocence and asserted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In support of his defence, the accused/appellant examined one witness namely Enakram Sahu as D.W.-1. 4. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, found the prosecution case to be credible and trustworthy. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 14.12.2007, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as detailed in para 1 of the said judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are illegal, unjust and contrary to the settled principles of law and the material available on record and therefore the same are liable to be set aside. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse and have been arrived at due to misappreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that the conviction of the appellant is not based on any legal, cogent and reliable evidence. The learned Trial Court has erred in relying upon conjectures, surmises and unfounded suspicion, which cannot be made the basis of conviction in a criminal case. The prosecution has failed to establish the case 5 against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in taking cognizance on the basis of a police report, despite the fact that the alleged offence was non- cognizable at the relevant time. Therefore, the entire proceedings stand vitiated being without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that as per the evidence of prosecution witness, it has been admitted that in case of any defect in the meter, it may not correctly record the consumption. However, the alleged seized meter was never sent for any technical or expert examination. This omission creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case and the benefit of such doubt ought to have been extended in favour of the appellant. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the admitted facts that the appellant was not present at the spot at the time of inspection and was ill. Moreover, no actual theft of electricity was detected during inspection. The alleged magnet was neither recovered from the possession of the appellant nor was it duly proved as a material exhibit before the Court. There is no evidence to establish that the said magnet was used by the appellant for committing theft of electricity. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any dishonest intention or wrongful gain on the part of the appellant. There is no evidence on record to show any financial benefit derived by the appellant from the alleged act. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution witnesses 6 have not stated anything in their examination-in-chief regarding such alleged gain. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly consider the circumstances relating to disconnection and stoppage of electricity supply, which negate the case of continuous theft and involvement of the appellant. The findings recorded in this regard are thus erroneous and unsustainable. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not considered the legal effect of the fact that the FIR was registered under a repealed provision and that there were apparent interpolations and procedural irregularities, which go to the root of the prosecution case and render it doubtful. It is also submitted that there are material irregularities in the framing of charge as well as in the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which have caused serious prejudice to the appellant and resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in the matter of the State of Maharashtra Vs. Gulab Ali Sayyad Bannu. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is legal, proper and based on due appreciation of evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved 7 the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through reliable and cogent evidence. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is evident from the record of the learned Trial Court that a charge was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty and accordingly convicted him under Section 135(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 9. S.K. Chakravarty (P.W.-5) stated that a complaint had been received regarding alleged electricity theft from the meter of Johat Ram Tahu in village Sirsida through the use of a magnet. He further stated that upon inspection on 01.02.2006, the meter connections were found reversed and signs of tampering, including scratches near the counter were noticed, indicating possible use of a magnet. He also stated that the consumer’s son, Birendra Kumar, admitted that a magnet was available but denied committing theft and claimed that the scratches had been caused by the person from whom the magnet had been obtained. In para 2, he stated that at the time of the investigation proceedings, the consumer, Shri Johtaram Sahu, was unwell. He 8 further stated that during the course of investigation, it was found that the meter was not fitted with a rotating mechanism. He also stated that the site inspection report and the Panchnama pertaining to the matter were prepared and identified the site inspection report as Ex. P/5, admitting his signature on the portion marked ‘C to C’ therein. In para 4, he stated that owing to the ill health of the accused, he was not called during the investigation and his son had been cooperating in the investigation proceedings. In para 5, he stated that, “ यह सह ह कि मौ  पर मौ ने मौ गने ट नेह पय था। चूंकि मौटर  रिरव्हस किय गय था ब्लिंकि ग नेह आ रह था उस वक्त खपत मौटर मौ% दर्ज नेह ह रह था और यह किवद्यु*त्त चूंर ह ह। यह सह ह कि यकिद मौटर मौ% खरबी ह त भी खपत दर्ज नेह हत। मौटर र्जप्त ह उस/ र्ज0चूं नेह / … गय ह ... ” 10. Khilawanram Sahu (P.W.-6), Additional Lineman; Mahaveer Chaturvedi (P.W.-7) and Teejuram Netam (P.W.-8), Security Personnel along with Gorelal Dhruv (P.W.-2), Lineman and Krishna Kumar (P.W.-3), Helper Lineman, accompanied S.K. Chakravarty (P.W.-5) to the relevant site. All these witnesses have consistently deposed that the son of the accused brought a magnet and handed it over to S.K. Chakravarty (P.W.-5). However, it is pertinent to note that no such magnet was recovered or found in the electricity meter during inspection. 11. Neelkanth Chandrakar (P.W.-1), Junior Engineer, stated that the Executive Engineer (Vigilance) visited village Sirsida, where 9 electricity theft was detected at the Huller Mill owned by the accused, Johatram, and on instructions, he registered the case and prepared the report (Ex.P/1). He further stated that vigilance officials handed over documents and seized articles, including a magnet and Electric Meter No. 497465, for which seizure memo Ex. P/2 was prepared. He also stated that he submitted an application (Ex. P/3) before the Judicial Magistrate, Kurud for taking cognizance. 12. Bandhuram Sinha (P.W.-9), Head Constable stated that upon production by the Junior Engineer of the Electricity Board Neelkanth, certain articles and documents, including a magnet, electric meter, seizure panchnama, bank cognizance form and site inspection panchnama were seized in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo (Ex.P/2) and admitted his signature on it from C to C part. 13. It is evident from the testimony of S.K. Chakravarty (P.W.-5) as well as other prosecution witnesses that, at the time of inspection, no magnet was found affixed to or present in the meter. S.K. Chakravarty (P.W.-5) himself admitted during cross-examination that the magnet was not recovered from the meter, and that upon his inquiry, the same was produced by the son of the accused, rather than being discovered during the inspection process. 14. Furthermore, the remaining witnesses have corroborated the defence version by affirming that no magnet was detected in the meter at the relevant time. It is also admitted by S.K. Chakravarty 10 (P.W.-5) that the seized meter was not subjected to any subsequent technical examination after seizure and no magnet was found therein. Significantly, the alleged magnet was neither seized from the premises of the Huller mill nor from the possession of the accused. 15. In view of these material inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence, it is manifest that the conviction of the appellant rests solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of S.K. Chakravarty (P.W.-5). The prosecution has thus failed to establish the charge of theft of electricity against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Any amount deposited by the appellant, if so, shall be refunded to his legal heirs in accordance with law. 17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV