apeal44.08.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.44 O
F 2008
Ashok Chandrabhanji Parvatkar,
Aged about 48 years,
Occupation Business,
Resident of Deoli, Tahsil Deoli,
District Wardha. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
Substituted by The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
order dt.
30.11.2017
Company Limited through Abhay Yashwant
Kulkarni, Aged about 45 years, Junior Engineer,
Kalam Division, District Yavatmal. ....... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri S.V. Purohit, Advocate for Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO , J.
DATE: th
30 NOVEMBER,
201
7 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Challenge is to the judgment and order dated
04.01.2008 in Special Case 8/2005 delivered by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, by and under which, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:27:55 ::: apeal44.08.J.odt 2 imprisonment for six months and to payment of fine of Rs.3,90,000/- and is further convicted for offence punishable under section 138 of the Electricity Act and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of three months and to payment of fine of Rs.1000/-.
2] Heard Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.V. Purohit, the learned counsel for the respondent.
3] The appellant-accused and the original complainant have filed on record a joint praecipe, which is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.
4] In view of the joint praecipe, the complainant and the accused are permitted to compound the offence punishable under section 135 of the Act on terms mentioned in the joint praecipe. Since the offence is compounded, the judgment and order impugned to the extent the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under section 135 of the Act, is set aside and the ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:27:55 ::: apeal44.08.J.odt 3 appellant-accused is acquitted.
5] The offence punishable under section 138 of the Act is non-compoundable as is held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Suresh Ganpati Halvankar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 2778. However, in view of the developments, I deem it appropriate to set aside the sentence of three months, and while I maintain the conviction I deem it appropriate to substitute the sentence of imprisonment by fine of Rs.10,000/-.
6] The appellant is acquitted of offence punishable under section 135 of the Act. The conviction for offence punishable under section 138 of the Act is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is altered to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. 7] The fine amount of Rs.10,000/- directly paid to the authorized officer in cash who acknowledges the receipt thereof. 8] The cheque dated 30.11.2017 bearing 698450 for ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:27:55 ::: apeal44.08.J.odt 4 Rs.1,30,007=00 towards assessment charges and the cheque dated 30.11.2017 bearing 698451 for Rs.20,000=00 towards compounding charges have been handed over by the learned counsel for the appellant to Mr. Ashish Gaikwad the authorized officer of the complainant company.
7] The criminal appeal is partly allowed, and is disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2017 01:27:55 :::