Chattisgarh High Court
Goti Lal Khande vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution ... on 2 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:20300
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 575 of 2016
Goti Lal Khande S/o Late Brijlal Aged About 58 Years R/o Village
Lavsara Rajabhatha, Police Station Baradwar, Civil And Rev. Distt.
Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through The
Assistant Engineer Office, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution
Company Ltd. Sakti, District - Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Dhruv, Advocate appears on behalf
of Mr. C.P. Lahrey, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate appears on
behalf of Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Judgment on Board
02.05.2025
1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth 'the Cr.P.C.') questioning
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.04.2016
(Annexure A-1) passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Janjgir,
District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Electricity Criminal Case
No.227/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
under :-
Conviction Sentence Fine
Under Section 135 RI for 06 months Under the civil
(A-1) of the Electricity liability, fine of
Act, 2003 Rs.91,932/-
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.01.2012, the
officer/employee of the electricity department went to village Lavsara
Rajabhatha for inspection where they found the accused involved in
illegally using the 3396 watt of electricity by connecting direct the line
for supply from L.T. Line. A inspection team was formed and thereafter
panchnama was conducted. As per the calculation sheet prepared by the
team a temporary fine was imposed the bill was handed over to the
appellant.
3. After completion of the entire inspection, a complainant case was filed to
punish the appellant under the Electricity Act and to receive a sum of Rs.
1,18,307/- from the appellant.
4. The ingredients of the Section 135 (1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 was
told to the appellant and also told the punishment under this act which
were denied by the appellant and he claimed for trial of the case.
5. In order to prove the charges against the appellant (accused), prosecution
examined as many as 04 witnesses. Statement of appellant was also
recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and
false implication. The present appellant did not produce any witness in
his defense.
6. The trial Court after hearing the parties and taking evidence, the present
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 135(1-A) of
the Electricity Act, 2003, sentence R.I. for 06 months. It is further
ordered that the appellant is under civil liability of Rs. 91,932/-. Hence,
this appeal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned
trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant without any
sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the
appellant. He further contended the learned Special Judge (Electricity
Act, 2003) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) erred in convicting the
appellant. The judgment, sentence and findings are against the law, facts
and evidence of the case. The judgment of conviction against the
appellant is very harsh and not according to law. The complainant
examined as many as 4 witnesses to establish its case before the learned
trial court but there were no independent witness was examined by the
complainant. He further contended that the offence against
appellant/accused person has not been proved at any corner beyond
reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be
pleased to set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
(Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the argument
raised by counsel for the appellant, supported the impugned judgment
and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper
and requires no interference.
9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and
perused the record of the trial Court and other material available on
record with utmost circumspection.
10. Assistant Engineer- H.S. Shukla (PW-2) has stated that on the said date,
Assistant Engineer P.K. Sharma had conducted an electrical inspection of
Gotilal Khande's premises and sent him the documents related to the
inspection. On the basis of these documents, he had prepared a
calculation sheet of Rs. 1,18,377 after assessing the theft of electricity.
The calculation sheet is Ex.P. 02. On the basis of the calculation sheet, he
had issued a temporary penalty assessment order in the name of accused
Gotilal in Form 05 and given it to Tirath Ram for serving. He had
returned Form 05 by writing a note on his refusal to accept the bill. This
Form 05 is Ex.P.-01. The Form 05 was sent by him to the accused
through registered post. The receipt of the registered post is Ex.P.-03.
After the entire proceedings, after the Executive Engineer, Sakti,
appointed him as the Nodal Officer, he has filed a complaint in the Court.
11. Junior Engineer- K.K. Patel (PW-3) has stated that on the said date, he
went to Rajabhatha Lavsara for electricity inspection along with Assistant
Engineer PK Sharma, Assistant Lineman Sevakram Rathore, Helper Pal
Nayak. While investigating, when we reached near Goti Lal's premises,
they saw that electricity was being used illegally by hooking directly
from the LT line. Then the investigation team was formed on the spot by
the investigation officer. The team formation is Ex.P-04. He recognize the
accused present in the court. After the formation of the investigation
team, the accused himself appeared on being called from the premises,
who was questioned in front of him by the investigating officer PK
Sharma about the ownership of the poultry farm and the hooking. Then
the accused told that the poultry farm was his and he himself had hooked
the LT line. The investigation officer himself had given a written notice to
the accused. After the notice, they had got the electrical inspection of the
premises done. In the notice, the accused was found using 10 bulbs, 05
fans of 200 watts, 01 TV, 02 bulbs of 100 watts and a water pump of total
3396 watts illegally in his poultry farm. In relation to which a panchnama
and site inspection report were prepared on the spot by the investigation
officer. The panchnama is Ex.P-5. The site inspection report is Ex.P-6.
12. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with theft of electricity.
The said Section is reproduced herein below :-
"135. Theft of Electricity. [(1) Whoever, dishonestly,-
(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with
overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service
wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case
may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current
reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or
method which interferes with accurate or proper registration,
calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in
a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment,
or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or
destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of
electricity; or
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the
usage of electricity was authorised,
so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine
or with both:
Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used
or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use--
(i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first
conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on
account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or
subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six
times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity;
(ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction
shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of
such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent
conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not
less than six months, but which may extend to five years and
with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of
such theft of electricity:
Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction
of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted
abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt,
such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a
period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years
and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period
from any other source or generating station:
Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not
authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for
the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be
presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or
use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.
(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or
supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity,
immediately disconnect the supply of electricity:
Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorised
for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the
licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so
authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity:
Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case
may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such
offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours from the
time of such disconnection:
Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on
deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance
with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to
lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore
the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or
payment.]
(2) [Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be, authorised] in
this behalf by the State Government may--
(a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or
premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity
[has been or is being], used unauthorisedly;
(b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments,
wires and any other facilitator or article which 1 has been, or
is being, used for unauthorised use of electricity;
(c) examine or seize any books of account or documents
which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any
proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1)
and allow the person from whose custody such books of
account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or
take extracts therefrom in his presence.
(3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf
shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized
in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such
occupant or person who shall sign the list:
Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any
domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between
sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member
occupying such premises.
(4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and
seizure under this Act.
13. It is undisputed fact that on the date of incident, when the Officials of the
Electricity Department reached the premises of the appellant for
inspection, they found that the appellant committing theft of electricity by
hooking the same and thereby caused financial loss to the Electricity
Department.
14. The appellant has also not stated anything concrete in his defence except
that he does not know and that he has been falsely implicated. In my
opinion, the above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to
one conclusion that it was the accused/appellant who has committed the
aforesaid crime. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the
appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on
evidence available on record and I am of the opinion that in the present
case, the only view possible was the one taken by the trial Court. Since the
appellant has theft of electricity, hence, offence under Section 135 (1-A)
of the Electricity Act, 2003 is fully proved against the appellant.
15. Since the commission of offence under Section 135 (1-A) of the
Electricity Act, 2003 has been duly proved, the learned trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellant in the aforesaid offence.
16. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident in
question took place on 21.01.2012 and now almost 12 years have passed,
the appellant has served the jail sentence about 03 months and there is no
previous antecedent of the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that
the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction
imposed upon the appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
17. So far as the civil liability is concerned, the appellant has not deposited
any amount towards the civil liability on account of causing electricity
theft, whereby the complainant-Power Distribution Company has suffered
a loss of Rs.45,966/- and the trial Court has directed to pay an amount of
Rs.91,932/- towards the civil liability, therefore, it is directed that
complainant-department can recover the said amount from the accused-
appellant, as per the law. Ordered accordingly.
18. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this
order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant
