Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6572 MP
Judgement Date : 24 April, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 24 th OF APRIL, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 474 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
M.P.M.K.V.V. CO. LTD. THROUGH ASST.
ENGINEER/JR.ENGINEER M.P.M.K.V.V. CO. LTD.
DISTRIBUTION CENTRE, MEHGAON/BARHAD,
DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NAROTTAM SHARMA- ADVOCATE )
AND
RAGHUVEER SINGH JATAV S/O BATURILAL RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE RAINKA, P.S. MEHGAON, DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NO ONE APPEARS FOR THE RESPONDENT THOUGH SERVED )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present criminal appeal under Section 378 of CrPC read with Section 156 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ( in short '' the Act, 2003'') has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 16-04-2009 passed by Special Judge (Electricity), Bhind in Special Sessions Trial No.65 of 2006 acquitting the respondent from the charge punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Act.
Necessary facts for disposal of present appeal in short are that a complaint under Section 138(1)(b) of the Act was filed before the Court below Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 4/26/2023 10:30:41 AM
stating therein that there was an outstanding dues of Rs.1,94,095/- against the respondent in respect of agricultural pump connection service no. 02-04- 1792.Thereafter, a notice dated 30-12-2005 was issued to respondent informing that his electricity connection has been disconnected. On 06-01-2006 at around 02:00 pm, on inspection it was found that the respondent has reconnected the agricultural pump unauthorizedly and committed theft of electricity. The trial Court after conclusion of trial and recording the evidence of complainant JE Harish Mehta and lineman Kalicharan not found guilty of the respondent for offence under Section 138(1)(b) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has
committed an error in acquitting the respondent. By relying upon the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, it is submitted that the electric connection is although in the name of father of respondent Baturilal but respondent Raghuveer is the beneficiary and he was found on the spot at the time of inspection. Even notice of disconnection was received by respondent Raghuveer on 30-12-2005. Learned Trial Court further committed an error in holding that no Panchnama was prepared at the time of disconnection of electricity connection. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and record of trial Court, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity committed by trial Court while acquitting respondent of the charge levelled against him. The appeal fails and is hereby rejected.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 4/26/2023 10:30:41 AM
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 4/26/2023 10:30:41 AM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!