Tulsiram vs M.P.Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5837 MP

                                                       1
                 IN         THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT GWALIOR
                                              BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                           ON THE 11 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 622 of 2011

               BETWEEN:-
               TULSIRAM S/O JAGANNATH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
               R/O GRAM ADWAD P.S.SHEOPUR DISTT. SHEOPUR
               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPELLANT
               (BY SHRI PAWAN VIJAYWARGIYA- ADVOCATE )

               AND
               M.P.MADHYA KSHETRA VIDHYUT VITRAN CO.LTD.
               SHEOPUR DISTT.SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENT
               (BY SHRI RINKESH GOYAL- ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT )

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

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the

judgment dated 18.7.2011 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Sheopur, in Special Case No.137/2011, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 138(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to undergo 3 months RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-.

In brief facts of the case are that electricity connection No.91-84-1000334 of the petitioner was temporarily disconnected on account of non-paying dues Signature Not Verified of Rs.1,85,916/- even after notice dated 17.1.2008 to deposit the said amount Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD within fifteen days. The appellant was informed in regard to disconnection. But Signing time: 13-04-2023 10:40:52 AM

on 8.2.2008 during checking it was found that without depositing the dues and without taking any valid permission, appellant again connected the electricity connection directly from the pole and was running the tube well. Panchnama was prepared in front of the witnesses. Thereafter complaint was filed. Appellant was charged under Section 138(1)(b) of the Electricity Act which he denied and requested for trial. After trial, he was convicted & sentenced as aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has erred in relying on the evidence of complainant and its witnesses. No independent witness has been examined.

Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Junior Engineer Shri Mohan Sharma (PW-3) has stated that on 17.1.2008 he was posted as Junior Engineer in rural area of M.P. Electricity Board Sheopur and village Adwad comes under his jurisdiction. Appellant was having a electricity connection No.91-84-1000334 for tube-well on which an amount of Rs.1,85,916/- was due in January, 2008, therefore, he was given a notice (Ex.P/3) to deposit the aforesaid amount within 15 days. But he did not pay the said amount, therefore, his connection was disconnected on 6.2.2008 and information in this regard was given to the appellant vide Ex.P/1. On 8.2.2008 during checking appellant was found consuming the electricity directly from the pole. Panchnama (Ex.P/2) was prepared by him before the appellant. Thereafter he filed the complaint before the Court. During cross-examination, he has stated Signature Not Verified that without record he cannot say as to when appellant took electricity Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 13-04-2023 10:40:52 AM connection. He cannot say today that in 2005 how much amount was due on

the appellant. Notice of disconnection was given on 6.2.2008. He denied that he falsely prepared the Panchnama. His evidence is well supported by Lineman Chhadamilal (PW-1) and Line Helper Moharsingh (PW-2). No discrepancy could be carved out from their cross-examination so that their evidence could be disbelieved.

Ramsingh has been examined from the side of the defence as DW-1. He has stated that appellant is not doing any agricultural work. His evidence is of no use.

After going through the record and evidence of the witnesses, this Court is of the considered opinion that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. No ground is made out warranting interference in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 13-04-2023 10:40:52 AM