Raghuveer Sahu vs Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14453 MP

                                                              1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                                              ON THE 4 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 801 of 2010

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAGHUVEER SAHU S/O NARAYAN SAHU, AGED ABOUT
                          30  YEARS, PADORA, POLICE STATION MAYAPUR,
                          DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                          (NONE FOR THE APPELLANT)

                          AND
                          MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT
                          VITRAN COMPANY LTD THROUGH JUNIOR ENGINEER
                          S.K.    PATERIYA,    VITRAN     KENDRA BHATI,
                          DISTT.SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI RAJENDRA BHARGAV- ADVOCATE )

                                Th is appeal coming on for direction this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

The present appeal assailing judgment and conviction dated 30.9.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, (Electricity Act, 2003), Pichhore, District Shivpuri in Special Session Trial No.70/2009 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 135/(1) of the Electricity Act with two years RI and fine of Rs.1,20,000/- with default stipulations.

The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant S. K. Pateria, Junior Engineer Bhati filed a complaint against the appellant by alleging that on 10.11.2006 at about 2:45 P.M., the inspection team of K.M. Bharduaj, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 06-Sep-23 1:42:31 PM

Executive Engineer, M.S. Qureshi, Junior Engineer, Ramratan Dhakad Line Helper and Kialash Ahirwal went at village Padora for inspecting premises of the appellant, they found 7.5 horse power electricity motor (Crompton) without name plate joined with 3 face LT line by 60 PBC wire and patta of the motor was joined with chakki. The light was enlightened and the grain was kept near it and the machine for taking out dhan was also fixed there. A generator was also kept there. The wire of motor and stator were given on supurdgi to the appellant after seizing them and a copy of panchnama was given to the appellant after preparing it and taking his signature. An assessment sheet for electric theft of Rs.39,853/- was assessed therein and compromised amount of Rs.15,000/-

was fixed, therefore, the appellant was sent a notice for depositing amount of Rs.54,853/- in all. The appellant had not taken any permission from the department for legal commercial electric connection and nor paid any consideration amount. He utilized the electric energy illegally and tampered with the service line and to create damages to it.

Learned Trial Court framed the charges under Section 135(1) of Electricity Act, 2003 against the appellant-accused which were denied by the appellant and pleaded not guilty. After taking evidence and hearing the parties on merits, convicted the appellant under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act with two years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.1,20,000/-.

The grounds for appeal are that the impugned judgment and conviction is against the settled principle of law and in jurisdictional error, hence it deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that there is no legal and cogent evidence on record to convict the appellant still the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant; therefore, it has been prayed that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the charge under Section 135(1) Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 06-Sep-23 1:42:31 PM

of the Electricity Act.

Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The respondent/complainant-M.S. Qureshi (PW-1), Ratan Lal Dhakad (PW/2) and K.M. Bharduaj (PW/3) were examined and supported the case of prosecution. All these three witnesses have corroborated the case of complainant and stated that on 10.11.2006 upon inspection it was found that appellant was steeling electricity by connecting wire directly on LT Line. He was using the electricity for his flour mill. The witnesses have also corroborated that on spot panchnama (Ex.P/1) was prepared and at that time of inspection appellant was present there and also signed on punchnama. The evidence of above witnesses remain unchallenged in their cross-examination. Nothing emerge in cross-examination to raise suspicion over their statement; therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act.

So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, looking to the nature of offence committed by the appellant and the appeal of being 2010, this Court finds it apposite to reduce the period of jail sentence of appellant awarded by the Trial Court from two years to three months. However, no interference is made in the amount of fine imposed by the Trial Court. If the appellant has not deposited the fine amount, he shall suffer additional two months rigorous

imprisonment. Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the jail sentence.

With the aforesaid, present appeal stands disposed of.

(SUNITA YADAV) Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 06-Sep-23 1:42:31 PM

JUDGE Ahmad

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 06-Sep-23 1:42:31 PM