Sureshchandra vs Madhyra Pradesh State Vidyut ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12907 MP

                                   1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE
                   HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                       ON THE 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 462 of 2010

        BETWEEN:-
        SURESHCHANDRA S/O S/O DURGAPRASAD ,
        AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O
        VILL.BILAUA,BAZAR,DISTT.GWALIOR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

        AND
1.      MADHYRA PRADESH STATE VIDYUT MANDAL
        JR.ENG.M.P.STATE                     VIDYUT
        M A N D A L , T E K A N P U R DISTT.GWALIOR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      STATE OF M.P. DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI RAJENDRA BHARGAVA - ADVOCATE)

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

The present appeal is filed assailing the judgment dated 19/03/2010 passed in Special Case No. 916/2008, by Special Court, Electricity Act, Dabra, District Gwalior by which the present appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 138 of Electricity Act and sentenced for imprisonment till rise of the Court and fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation of six months rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution story in brief is that the father of the present

appellant/accused was given Electricity Connection No. 71434073. After death of his father, the appellant/accused illegally started using the electricity and did not pay the arrear amount of Rs. 23,957/-. Thereafter, after giving notice, his electricity connection was disconnected. On 28/07/2005, the house of the appellant/accused was visited and found that he was using electricity illegally by reconnecting with the main line.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellant. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. No panchnama has been prepared to prove illegal connection with

the main line. PW-1 was not authorized to file the complaint. Therefore, the impugned order is perverse and deserves to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and prays to dismiss the present appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.

Perusal of record shows that the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses namely Somdatt Mishra (PW-1), Parshuram Chaurasia (PW-2) and A.M. Garg (PW-3). All the prosecution witnesses in their examination-in-chief supported the case of the prosecution, however, there are material contradictions in their cross-examination. PW-1 Somdatt Mishra has admitted in Para-4 of his statement that in Exhibit P-1, the direction to file complaint has been mentioned for Bhitarwar and not for the area of his jurisdiction.

The evidence of prosecution witnesses also show that there is no document or panchnama on record for disconnection of the electricity of the house of the appellant. So also, no panchanama has been made to prove that

any material or wire was being used for illegal re-connection. It is also apparent that the witnesses had not entered into the house of the appellant/accused. Therefore, the alleged illegal use of electricity has also not been proved.

Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby quashed.

Appellant is acquitted from all the charges.

Fine amount deposited by the appellant/accused shall be released in his favour.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE vj

ALOK KUMAR 2022.09.30 10:56:48 +05'30' 11.0.23