Rakesh vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Ksheta ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7854 MP

                                  1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                 BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                          ON THE 15th OF JUNE, 2022

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7960 of 2021

        Between:-
        RAKESH S/O HARNARAYAN SHIVHARE , AGED
        ABOUT 42 YEARS, GRAM SHUKLHARI THANA
        GIJORA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....APPELLANT
        (BY SHRI R.P. GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

        AND

        MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETA VIDHUT
        VITRAN COMPANY LIMT. MADHYA PRADESH
        MADHYA KSHETA VIDHUT VITRAN COMPANY
        LIMT. PICHHOR, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENT
        (BY SHRI K.K. PRAJAPATI - ADVOCATE)

      Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

This appeal under Section 156 of Electricity Act is filed being aggrieved

by the judgment dated 22.11.2021 passed by Special Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in criminal case No.553/2015.

The facts in brief to decide this appeal are that a complaint under Section 138 of Electricity Act was filed by the respondent/complainant against the appellant before the Special Court. Learned trial Court after hearing the evidence decided the case by the judgment dated 22.11.2021 and acquitted the appellant/accused. During the course of trial, the appellant/accused filed some documents to prove his residential address in his defence. Learned trial Court

found that there are contradictory facts in respect to the resident/address of the appellant/accused in the documents filed by him. Therefore, he expressed his suspicion on the genuineness of this documents at para-20 of the judgment and directed to send the said documents to the concerned police for appropriate action.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the above direction and observation of the trial Court is illegal and perverse. He has further argued that during trial, it was found that father of the appellant Harnarayan was dead when the case was instituted against him but learned trial Court had not directed to take action against the respondent/complainant. Instead the Court had directed

the concerned police for appropriate action on the basis of the documents filed by the appellant which cannot be done.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that in view of the misleading facts on the documents filed by the appellant/accused, learned Court has rightly observed that the said documents are seems to be forged. He has further argued that learned trial Court has only directed the police to take appropriate action and the Court has not given any specific finding that the documents are forged and therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

On perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant/accused has taken the defence that he was residing in Dabra with his family. The appellant/accused has also filed documents to prove his defence. In his support, he has filed Ex.D-5 which is Samagra Portal/Samagra Parivar Card in which address of the appellant/accused is shown at village Shuklhari not Dabra.

In view of the mention of contradictory facts on the documents filed by

the appellant/accused, the observations and directions made by the learned trial Court are not found to be illegal or perverse. The appellant/accused can always challenge the outcome of the police enquiry in respect to the above documents before the appropriate forum, if it is found against him.

Consequently, the appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE bj/-

BARKHA SHARMA 2022.06.1 6 17:28:01 +05'30'