Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raj Kumar Gupta vs V.C. Pathak on 28 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3433 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
RAJ KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI NANDLAL GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, VILL. SIDHI KHURD POST SIDHI P.S.
SIDHI KOTWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
V.C. PATHAK S/O .... OCCUPATION: JUNIOR ENGINEER
RURAL ELECTRICITY SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT
ELECTRICITY DFISTRIBUTION CENTRE SIDHI CITY
DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.12.2015
passed by Special Judge, Sidhi in Special Electricity Case No.881/2010,
whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant for commission
of offence under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for six months with fine Rs.15,000/- with default stipulations.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 06.03.2009, upon surprise
inspection of low tension line in the village, it was found that the appellant was
using electricity by directing hooking and using using certain machines having
total load of 2.49 KW. The loss caused from theft was assessed at Rs.5536/-
and compounding fees Rs.4000/-.
3. Upon perusal of the evidence, it is seen that witnesses of the Electricity
Board have duly supported the prosecution case and from the evidence nothing
could be seen that may demolish the case of the prosecution. This Court has
gone through the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The
prosecution has examined (PW-1) B.C Pathak, (PW-2) K.M Pandey and (PW-
3) Satya Bahadur and other witnesses. This Court has carefully gone through
the evidence of the material witnesses.
4. In such circumstances, the conviction of the appellant cannot be
disturbed. Consequently, the conviction is maintained.
5. However, the case is of the year 2009 and the appellant has faced trial
and this appeal is also pending since long. The offence under Electricity Act is
basically a fiscal offence which can be compensated in terms of money. Such
offences are compromised by the Electricity Board by means of Lok Adalat
also on payment of amount of electricity loss.
6. Consequently, the judgment dated 07.12.2015 is confirmed. However,
the sentence is modified to the extent of fine only Rs.20,000/-. Amount of
Rs.15,000/- has already been imposed by the trial Court.
8. Let the appellant pay the additional amount of fine i.e Rs.5000/- as
quantified by this Court, if the said amount is not deposited within a period of
three months from today, then the original sentence would come into operation
and appellant shall be taken into custody or he would surrender himself to serve
the entire jail sentence of six months as awarded by the learned trial Court with
default stipulations.
9. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
10. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
11. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
Prar
