Bombay High Court
Laxman Sopan Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 August, 2017
Bench: Sangitrao S. Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2008
Laxman s/o Sopan Shinde,
Age : 62 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Andhora, Tq. Paranda,
District Osmanabad APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station,
Paranda RESPONDENT
----
Mr. P.B. Rakhunde, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. K.D. Mundhe, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
----
CORAM : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 14th AUGUST, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.
2. The appellant has challenged his conviction and
sentence for the offence punishable under Section 135
(1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("Act", for short),
passed in Special Case No. 98 of 2006 by the learned
Special Judge, Osmanabad on 7th February, 2008.
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:34:12 :::
2 criapl67-2008
3. It is alleged that the appellant committed
theft of electricity by taking illegal connection from
L.T. Supply Line upto his house. The electricity stolen
by the appellant is stated to be 194 units.
4. After evaluating the evidence on record, the
learned Special Judge held the appellant guilty of the
said offence and punished him to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.
1555/-, which was determined as civil liability as
contemplated under Section 154 (5) of the Act. The
appellant has deposited the fine amount in the Trial
Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant, on
instructions, submits that the appellant is not going to
press the grounds of objections against his conviction.
He submits that the period of more than eleven years has
been elapsed after the date of commission of the alleged
offence. The appellant is a poor person. He has
deposited the amount determined towards the civil
liability. He, therefore, submits that the leniency may
be shown to the appellant and instead of sending him to
jail, he may be ordered to pay additional fine amount.
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:34:12 :::
3 criapl67-2008
6. The learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer made on
behalf of the appellant.
7. The offence under clause (a) of sub-section (1)
of Section 135 of the Act is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
or with fine or with both. The alleged theft of
electricity was committed on 31st October, 2006. Thus,
the period of more than ten years has been elapsed after
the date of commission of the offence. The appellant is
a poor person. No previous conviction is standing to
his credit. He is not a person of criminal antecedents.
The informant i.e. the Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. may be more interested in
getting the loss suffered by the Company compensated in
terms of money than seeing the accused behind the bars
for such a small amount of theft of electricity. It is
not that the appellant has committed theft of a huge
quantity of electricity for running any business or
industry. The theft is stated to have been committed for
the use for domestic purpose in a small house. In the
circumstances, the learned Special Judge ought to have
used his discretion in the matter of inflicting
punishment as provided under Section 135 of the Act
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:34:12 :::
4 criapl67-2008
itself and instead of sending the appellant behind the
bars, ought to have inflicted the punishment of heavy
fine so that the Company also could have been duly
compensated. Considering these facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the view that though the conviction
of the appellant for the above mentioned offence needs
no interference, the punishment of sending him behind
the bars, being harsh, will have to be set aside and
instead, he will have to be directed to pay additional
fine amount, out of which the Company can be adequately
compensated. In the result, I allow the appeal partly
with the following order:-
O R D E R
(i) The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order, convicting the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 135
(1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, is
confirmed.
(iii) The impugned order of sentence passed against
the appellant is quashed and set aside and
instead of sentencing him to suffer simple
5 criapl67-2008
imprisonment for one month, he is ordered to
pay additional fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten
thousand), in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for three months.
(iv) The appellant is granted time of four weeks
from today to deposit the amount of fine before
the Trial Court, failing which he shall
surrender to his bail bonds by appearing before
the Trial Court to undergo the sentence of
imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
(v) In case the appellant does not pay the fine
amount as directed above and does not appear
before the Trial Court within four weeks from
today, the Trial Court shall issue coercive
process against the appellant to secure his
presence for compliance of this order.
(vi) If the fine amount, as directed above, is
deposited by the appellant or recovered from
him, it be paid to the complainant -
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd., as compensation.
6 criapl67-2008
(vii) On deposit of the fine amount by the appellant,
as directed above, his bail bonds shall stand
cancelled and he shall be set at liberty, if
not required in any other case.
(viii) The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL]
JUDGE
npj/criapl67-2008
