Yunus Mohammad S/O Ghasibhai ... vs State Of Mah. Thru. Pso Yavatmal & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9224 Bom

 apeal256.08.J.odt                         1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                      CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO.256 O
                                                F 2008
                                                      


          Yunus Mohammad s/o Ghasibhai Lohar
          (Correct Name: Mohd. Yusuf Ghisabhai
          Lohar), Aged about 54 years,
          Occupation: Welding Workshop,
          R/o Gulshan Nagar,
          Tq. Pandharkawada Road, Yavatmal,
          District Yavatmal.                ....... APPELLANT


                                   ...V E R S U S...


 1]       The State of Maharashtra through
          Police Station Officer, Police Station,
          Yavatmal.

 2]       The Maharashtra State Electricity
          Distribution Co. Ltd., through 
          Vilas Madhukar Hade, 
          Aged about 50 years,
          Deputy Executive Flying Squad,
          MSEDCL, Yavatmal.                                  .......  RESPONDENT S          
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Appellant.
          Shri A. Kadukar, APP for Respondent No.1.
          Shri S.V. Purohit, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          CORAM:            ROHIT B. DEO , J.

          DATE:                th
                            30    NOVEMBER,

                                               7  . 










 ORAL JUDGMENT



 1]               The appellant is challenging the judgment and order 

dated 17.05.2008 in Special Case 1/2006 delivered by the

Additional Sessions Judge-2, Yavatmal, by and under which, the

appellant is convicted for offence punishable under section 135 of

the Electricity Act, 2003 ('Act' for short) and is sentenced to suffer

simple imprisonment for six months and to payment of fine of

Rs.3,71,547/- and is further convicted for offence punishable

under section 138 of the Act and is sentenced to simple

imprisonment for six months.

2] Heard Shri J.B. Kasat, the learned counsel for the

appellant, Shri Ashish Kadukar, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for respondent 1/State and Shri S.V. Purohit, the

learned counsel for respondent 2. I am informed at the bar that

the appellant-accused is ready to pay the compounding charges

and the assessment charges, if the complainant company is

agreeable to accept the same. The complainant company agrees to

the proposal.

3] The compounding charges are Rs.67,000/- and the

assessment charges are Rs.1,23,849/- and the total amount

payable would be Rs.1,89,849/-.

4] Shri Kasat, the learned counsel states that a

substantial amount is already deposited in this Court.

He undertakes to make the payment of the balance amount to the

complainant company within a month. The learned counsel for the

complainant company Shri S.V. Purohit, on instructions, has no

objection.

5] The complainant and the accused are permitted to

compound the offence punishable under section 135 of the Act.

The accused shall, within a month, pay the balance amount, to the

complainant company.

6] Subject to the payment of the balance amount, the

judgment and order shall stand set aside. The accused shall stand

acquitted under section 135 of the Act.

7] The offence punishable under section 138 of the Act is

non-compoundable in view of the judgment of the 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 just and

appropriate to maintain the conviction under section 138 of the

Act and to alter the sentence to payment of Rs.10,000/-.

The amount of fine shall be directly paid to the complainant

company within a month.

8] The conviction and sentence of the accused under

section 135 of the Act is set aside since the said offence is

compounded. The conviction for offence punishable under section

138 is maintained and the sentence of imprisonment is substituted

by sentence of payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-.

9] Needless to say, the complainant company shall be

entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant with

the accrual thereon, if any, from the Registry of this Court.

10] The criminal appeal is partly allowed and is disposed

of in the above terms.

JUDGE

NSN