Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bakshi vs M.P.Paschim Kshetra Vidhut Vitran ... on 27 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 27 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1802 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
BAKSHI S/O SIDDHNATH PANCHAL, AGED ABOUT 45
YE A R S , GRAM MAGARANIYA THANA SHUJALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI DHARMENDRA SINGH PATEL - ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANT)
AND
M.P.PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDHUT VITRAN CO.LTD
THRU.PAWAN SINGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
V.V.KENDRA SHUJALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAJID IQBAL ANSARI - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
01. The present appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been
preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.10.2014
passed by Special Judge Electricity Act, 2003, Sujalpur in Special Electricity
Case No. 1985 of 2012, whereby the appellant accused has been convicted
under Section 138 (1) (b) of Electricity Act, 2003 and imposed the sentence of
till rising Court and Rs. 2000/- fine with default stipulation of seven days simple
imprisonment.
02. As per the prosecution story the appellant accused is the consumer
through domestic electricity connection No. 72-24-401533. Connection was
disconnected on 07.06.2012 due to default in payment of arrears of Rs.
21,310/- of electricity consumption. When the premises of the
appellant/accused accused was inspected on 16.06.2012 at about 12:30 PM it
was found that the appellant /accused has made connection of his meter to the
service line and is using the electricity. A Panchanama No. 010/3x1 (Exhibit-
P-1) was prepared and a complaint was filed by the Authorized officer before
the Special Judge Electricity Act, 2003, Sujalpur.
03. Appellant accused was tried summarily under Section 138 (1) (b) of
Electricity Act, 2003 where the appellant accused abjured the guilt.
04. Prosecution examined Pawan Singh, Assistant Engineer, Sujalpur as
(PW-1), Satyendra Singh, Assistant Lineman as (PW-2) posted at Jetla
Headquarter within the jurisdiction of M.P Paschim Kshetra Vidhut Vitran
Company Ltd.
05. Trial Court convicted the appellant accused under Section 138 (1)
(b) of of Electricity Act, 2003. Challenging the conviction and sentence this
appeal has been preferred on the ground that the trial Court has ignored the
inconsistency in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the
Panchanama PW-4. Trial Court has noted the fact that the notice Exhibit-P-2
was not served on the appellant/ accused. Trial Court has ignored that service
on his minor son Arjun is not a proper service. The trial Court has ignored the
irregularities in preparing the electricity disconnection order Exhibit-P-3 and the
trial Court has also ignored the fact that no details are given regarding the
apparatuses used in consuming the electricity. The amount mentioned in
Exhibit-P-1 does not mention the month to which it relates.
06. Learned counsel appearing of behalf of M.P Paschim Kshetra Vidhut
Vitran Company Ltd. has supported the judgment of the trial Court and prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
08. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court it is observed that the
trial Court has discussed all the points raised in the appeal in paragraphs - 4, 5,
6 and 7 of the judgment meticulously. No material has been brought on record
that Arjun, on whom the notice (Exhibit-P-2) was served and who reside in the
premises was minor on the date of issuing notice i.e 12.03.2012. It is
specifically mentioned on the (Exhibit-P-3) that the appellant/accused did not
sign the order of disconnection of electricity connection (Exhibit-P-3). In his
answer to the question No.3 of examination under Section 313 of the CrPC the
appellant accused has accepted the service of notice (Exhibit-P-2) on him .
09. On re-appreciation of testimony of Pawan Singh, (PW-1) and
Satyendra Singh, (PW-2) the findings of the trial Court are not to be interfered
with. The findings of the trial Court are on proper appreciation of testimony of
PW-1 and PW-2. The conviction of the appellant accused under Section 138
(1) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is recorded on proper appreciation of the
evidence and hence it is affirmed. The sentence of till rising Court and the fine
of Rs. 2000/- has been imposed showing utmost leniency towards the
appellant/accused. The order sheet dated 31.10.2014 of the trial Court
mentions that the sentence of till rising of Court has been undergone by the
appellant accused. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the sentence
also. This appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
V. JUDGE
rashmi
