Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil @ Bharat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 28 December, 2023
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 28th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.337 OF 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. SUNIL @ BHARAT, S/O SHRI RAM DYAL JATAV,
AGED 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KRISHI, R/O
VANKHANDI MAHADEV, DISTRICT- MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KAMLESH S/O RAJARAM BRAHMAN, AGED 45
YEARS, OCCUPATION: KRISHI, R/O POLICE
STATION- JOURA, DISTRICT- MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SANJAY SINGH, S/O CHHOTE SINGH
BHADAURIYA, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O POLICE
STATION- KAILARAS, DISTRICT- MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
........APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK TIWARI- ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH INCHARGE OFFICER,
POLICE STATION- KOTWALI, DISTRICT-
SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RINKESH GOYAL- ADVOCATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
2
ORDER
This appeal is pending since 2015. This appeal has been filed by the
appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
23/03/2015 passed by Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), Sheopur,
District- Sheopur (M.P.) in S.S.T. No.357/2013, whereby each appellants
have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Section Sentence Fine (Rs.) Default Stipulation
136-A of 1 Year RI 1000/- 2 Months RI
Electricity Act
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants No.1 to 3
remained in custody for 142, 148 and 142 days' respectively and incident is
of the year 2006 and more than 17 years have lapsed. Learned counsel for
the appellants by not pressing on conviction confined his argument only to
the point of sentence and prays that the sentence awarded to them be
modified to the extent that period already undergone by them would be
sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the fine amount
is enhanced while reducing the jail sentence of the appellants.
4. Although appeal on merit is not pressed today but in the interest of
justice, record is seen and after going through the record and looking to the
facts conviction is found to be justified, hence, conviction is affirmed. And
in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that while
affirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 136-A of Electricity
Act, jail sentence of the appellants can be reduced to the period already
undergone by them but fine amount can be enhanced from Rs.1000/- to
Rs.10000/- each for the offence under Section 136-A of Electricity Act.
Accordingly, fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.10,000/- each
which shall be deposited by them with the respondent/Company i.e. Madhya
Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. and produce its receipt
before the trial Court within a period of 30 days' from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order, failing which the appellants will have to suffer
the complete sentence as awarded by the trial Court.
5. In view of the above, this appeal is finally disposed of.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent alongwith the record to the concerned
Court for necessary compliance.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
V. JUDGE
RAHUL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
SINGH rahul
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da460684034
62fdf82ab676d0cde4dee473fe77953f5,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534
PARIHAR E21BDED910FD4AB9D159B55575E814D05B2EE
D, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR
Date: 2023.12.29 11:21:56 +05'30'
