Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chander 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. 1684 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
CHANDER S/O DHANNALAL GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, R/O MOHANPURA, BAIRASIYA DISTT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.K. GANGRADE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH P.S.
BERASIYA, 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
T his 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 appellant has been convicted
under Section 136(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as "the
Act") and has been sentenced to undergo RI for six months.
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 appellant as mentioned hereinabove.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press
the challenge with regard to the conviction. However, he submits that the
appellant has been in custody during trial near about 76 days and the incident
allegedly took place near about more than 17 years back. The appellant has 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 appellant. As regards the sentence, the prayer made on behalf
of the appellant appears to be reasonable. The appellant has been in custody for
76 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 appellant is upheld. As regards
sentence, the same is reduced to the period already undergone. Surety and bail
bonds of the appellant 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/-
