Bombay High Court
Ashok Chandrabhanji Karwatkar vs M.S.E.B. Thru. Abhay Yashva ... on 30 November, 2017
Bench: R. B. Deo
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,
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
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
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
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
