While dealing with the appeal, the Karnataka High Court noted that under section 135 the fine imposed for electricity theft shall be thrice the amount of financial gains from the same and accordingly the sentence imposed by the special court was enhanced.
Brief Facts:
In the current appeal, modification, and enhancement in the sentence passed in the special case by the special judge, Udupi for the offenses punishable under sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been prayed.
The respondent in the previous cases was convicted under sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on him under section 138. He was also directed to pay the back bill of Rs. 36,063/-.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the minimum sentence for the offenses under section 135 shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of theft of electricity in the event of the first conviction as has been mentioned under section 135(1) of the Electricity Act. It has been contended that the special court has imposed a sentence less than the minimum sentence and the same has to be enhanced.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has contended that the sentence imposed by the special court is proper and adequate and further since the respondent–accused has already paid the back billed amount, the sentence should not be enhanced.
Observations of the Court:
The court went through the provisions of section 135 of the electricity act which talks about the theft of electricity and noted that according to it the fine imposed on the first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of the electricity theft. So, for the same, the financial gain made by the respondent accused of theft of the electricity has to be ascertained from the evidence on record.
Further, it was noted that PW3 who is a junior engineer had calculated the back billing, and given the notice of the same therein an amount of Rs. 36,063/- was calculated on the basis of the average consumption by the respondent accused, and the consumption of units recorded in the meter. The court concluded that the amount of the back billing is a financial gain by the respondent accused of the commission of theft of electricity.
Under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, in the first conviction as noted earlier the minimum fine should be three times the financial gain in the case when the load used is less than 10 kilowatts. In the current case, the minimum fine would come to Rs.1,08,189/-.
Accordingly, the court concluded that the sentence of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the Special Court is less than the minimum sentence and is not proper and therefore, the same has to be enhanced to three times the financial gain.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal and according to section 135 of the Electricity Act modified and enhanced the sentence to Rs. 1,08,189/-.
Case Title: State By PI MESCON v. B Usman Beary
Coram: Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar
Case no.: NC: 2023:KHC:27419 CRL.A No. 1128 of 2011
Advocate for the Appellant: Sri Renukaradhya R D, HCGP
Advocate for the Respondent: Sri Lingaraj
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
