[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Lambodar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
Digitally
signed
by AMIT
PATEL
1
2026:CGHC:16785
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 495 of 2007
Lambodar S/o Shri Mohanlal Jaiswal, aged about 32 years, Occupation-
Haller Mill, R/o Village- Mohapali, Police Station and Tahsil- Sarangarh,
District- Raigarh (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Sarangarh, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)
... Respondent/State
_____________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate.
For State : Mrs. Shubha Shrivastava, PL
____________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgement on Board
13.04.2026
1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 19.06.2007 passed by
learned Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), Raigarh (C.G.) in Special
Case No. 44/2007, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and
sentenced him as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 135 of R.I. for 01 year with fine amount of
Electricity Act, 2003 Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of
fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 03
months
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant is a resident of Village
Mohapali, Tahsil and Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.),
where he has installed a huller mill and is engaged in that business. It is
submitted that for the purpose of operating the huller mill, the appellant
obtained an electricity connection bearing No. 90/1/18625 with a load of
10 horsepower. On 28.01.2006, when the vigilance team headed by
G.P. Sonwani, Executive Engineer (Vigilance), visited the appellant's
premises for a surprise inspection, it was alleged that they found a
magnet placed over the electric meter. On this basis, a case was
registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for interfering
with the proper recording of electricity consumption. A written report of
the incident was submitted by the Executive Engineer to Police Station
Sarangarh, upon which the offence was registered. During the
investigation, the magnet was seized, statements of the witnesses were
recorded and a spot map was prepared. After completion of due and
necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of
the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the
case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-
sheet, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for
the alleged commission of an offence under Section Section 135 (1) (a)
of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 379 of IPC. The appellant
having abjured guilt, was subjected to trial.
3. To robe the appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has
examined as many as 05 witnesses. The statement under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has been recorded, in which he denied the
incriminating charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence
that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
4. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective
parties and considered the material available on record thereby
convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in
inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court
erred in convicting the appellant for the said offence without any cogent
reason. The learned trial Court failed to consider that the prosecution
did not prove that the appellant had interfered in any manner with the
consumption of electricity. The learned trial Court further failed to
consider that the alleged use of a magnet, as claimed by the
complainant Electricity Board, was not proved, as neither the capacity
nor the size of the magnet was specified or established by placing
cogent evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed
by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.
Alternatively, he submits if this Court ultimately comes to the
conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the
aforesaid section, as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper,
however, in the said section, the whole fine amounts as imposed
by the trial Court has already been deposited by the appellant
before the trial Court, the incident took place in the year 2006, the
appellant is now aged more than 55 years, he has remained in jail
for about 08 days and he is facing the lis since 2007 i.e. for about
more than 18 years and therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the
appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the
impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by
this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment.
8. It is evident from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges
against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 135 (1) (a)
of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 379 of IPC. Learned Trial
Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,
convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as
mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment.
9. PW-1 G.P. Sonwani, Executive Engineer (Vigilance), Chhattisgarh
Electricity Board, stated that on 28.01.2006, he went to inspect the
huller mill of the accused, Lambodar. He was accompanied by Meter
Inspector B.B. Mishra and an employee of the Gudeli Electricity
Distribution Centre. During the inspection of the meter installed at the
accused's mill, he noticed a magnet placed on the meter and found that
it was causing interference with the recording of electricity
consumption, thereby preventing the correct measurement of electricity
usage. Thereafter, he seized the magnet on the spot in the presence of
two villagers as per seizure memo (Ex. P/1). He prepared the
inspection report (Ex. P/2) and forwarded the same to the superior
officer for necessary proceedings as per Ex. P/3.
10. PW-4 Rameshwar Prasad and PW-5 Dinesh Kumar admitted their
signatures on the seizure memo (Ex. P/1); however, they denied that
any other proceedings were conducted in their presence. They were
declared hostile by the prosecution, but they denied all the suggestions
put to them by the prosecution.
11. PW-2 Ishwar Singh Kunwar, Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity
Board, Sarangarh, stated that he lodged an F.I.R. against the accused
based on the report submitted by PW-1 G.P. Sonwani. The F.I.R. is Ex.
P/4 and the written complaint is Ex. P/5, on which he admitted his
signatures on A to A part. He further stated that he calculated the loss
of electricity vide Ex. P/6.
12. It is evident from the statements of PW-1 G.P. Sonwani and PW-2
Ishwar Singh Kunwar that both are public servants and employees of
the Electricity Board, and they remained firm during their cross-
examinations. PW-4 and PW-5 have also admitted their signatures on
the seizure memo (Ex. P/1).
13. During the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the
accused did not deny that he is the owner of the huller mill; he merely
answered that he was not present at the huller mill at the time of the
inspection.
14. From bare perusal of the record and from close scrutiny of all the
witnesses, clearly establish the involvement of the appellant in the
crime in question, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court
did not commit any illegality or irregularity in the findings as recorded by
learned trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for offence
under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. So, the conviction of the
appellant is hereby affirmed.
15. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took
place in the year 2006, the appellant is now aged more than 55 years,
he has remained in jail for about 08 days he is facing the lis since 2007
i.e. for about more than 18 years, also considering this fact that in the
said section, the whole fine amounts as imposed by the trial Court has
already been deposited by the appellant before the trial Court and in
this regard he filed a receipt and therefore, no useful purpose would be
served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it
would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to
the period already undergone by him. The appellant is directed to
deposit the penalty amount of Rs. 16,374/- in three installments as
directed by learned trial Court within three months from today, in case it
has not already been paid.
16. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the
appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is
sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned
judgment stands modified to the above extent.
17. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith if no
longer required in any other case.
18. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023
the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.
25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned
which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an
undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against
the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on
receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
19. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back
immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary
action.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
AMIT PATEL
