Kifayat Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22431 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kifayat Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 December, 2023

                                                              1
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                              ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1759 of 2008

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    KIFAYAT ALI S/O SHRI SUBRATI, AGED ABOUT 27
                                 YEAR S, R/O KALI MOHALLA BERASIA, DISTT.
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SADAB @ BILLU S/O YUSUF KHAN, AGED ABOUT
                                 22 YEARS, ISLAMPURA, BERASIA, DIST.BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    RAGHUVEER @ RAGGA S/O BATANLAL MEHAR,
                                 AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O KALI MASJID,
                                 BERASIA, DISTT.BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI ISHTIYAQ HUSSAIN - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH P.S.
                           BERASIA, DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENT/STATE
                           (BY SHRI RAVINDRA RAJPUT - PANEL LAWYER)

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

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short "the code") has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30/7/2008 passed by Special Judge (M.P. Electricity Act), Bhopal in Special Case no.2063/2006, whereby appellants have been convicted under Section 136(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as "the

Act") and have been sentenced to undergo RI for six months each.

2. The prosecution story is that an application was filed on 20/5/2008 by the Assistant Engineer, M.P. Electricity Distribution Company Berasia, Distt. Bhopal to the effect that some unknown persons in the midnight of 18/5/2006 have stolen electricity wires from the field of Jhanak Singh Dangi total length of 1300 meter value thereof is Rs.15,600/-. On this, FIR was registered at Police Station Berasia, Distt. Bhopal in Crime No.219/2006 for the offence under Section 136 of the Electricity Act. Investigation ensued and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before JMFC Berasia.

3. After completion of the trial, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment

convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned hereinabove.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press the challenge with regard to the conviction. However, he submits that the appellants have been in custody during trial near about 53 days and the incident allegedly took place near about more than 17 years back. The appellants have no criminal antecedent, a lenient view may be taken as regards to the sentence and the same may be reduced to the period already undergone.|

5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that an appropriate order may be passed by this Court in this regard.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offence u/s. 136(1)(a) of the Act is found to be clear, cogent and consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The testimony of the Investigating Officer ASI Ravi Shankar Sharma (PW/4), though not supported by the independent witnesses of seizure memo but the testimony of this Investigating Officer has no material infirmity which could make his statement is

unreliable, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the learned trial Court has committed any error in recording conviction for offence u/s. 136(1)(a) of the Act against the appellants. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf of the appellants appears to be reasonable. The appellants have been in custody for 53 days during trial. The incident belongs way back to 17 long years. No criminal antecedents are attributed to the appellants, therefore, the period of sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. 8 . Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence as mentioned hereinabove. The conviction of the appellants is upheld. As regards sentence, the same is reduced to the period already undergone. Surety and bail bonds of the appellants are discharged.

9. Let the record of the learned trial Court along with the copy of the judgment be sent back forthwith to the concerned trial Court for compliance and necessary action.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE m/-