Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pravesh Prasad Kewat vs M.P.State Electricity Board on 5 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2303 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
PRAVESH PRASAD KEWAT S/O SHAMBHU PRASAD
KEWAT, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, VILL.PIPARIYA
KUSNER PS.PANAGAR DI.JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
M.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PS.ADHARTAL
PS.PANAGAR DI.JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JHA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGEMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by learned Special Judge, Jabalpur in Special Case No.78/2005
whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 135(a) of Electricity
Act, 2003 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of 25,152/-,
and in default, to further undergo RI for one-year.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri. Narendra Lodhi,
Advocate, who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court
on behalf of the appellant as amicus curiae.
3. The brief facts in nutshell is that on 14/5/2005, when the junior engineer
was on inspection with his staff, he found that appellant was unauthorisedly
using electricity and doing brick kiln work. The said connection was took
directly from electricity line of Electricity Board, and thus committing theft of
electricity. On that, panchnama was prepared by the flying squad and appellant
was given a demand notice of Rs. 8,384/- on his failure to deposit the due
amount, a complaint was filed before the competent Court. the appellant was
prosecuted by the trial Court and upon conclusion of trial, the appellant was
held guilty and sentenced as detailed above.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Alternatively, he submits that
during the trial, the appellant was on bail and did not misused the liberty granted
by the trial Court. During the trial, the appellant remained in custody for 2 days.
It is submitted by learned counsel that the incident is of the year 2005 since then
the appellant is facing mental agony. It is also submitted that at the time of
offence, the appellant was of 32 years of age. The appellant is first offender.
There was no mens rea behind the incident, so a liberal view on the point of
sentence be taken by the Court, and this appeal may be allowed and judgment
of the trial Court be quashed.
5 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the
incident and the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant. He
said that the Court is at liberty to consider the case on the point of sentence.
6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by
judgment dated 30/9/2008 convicted the appellant under Section 135(a) of
Electricity Act and sentenced as stated herein above, however, the findings
recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence
and do not require any interference. The judgment of conviction under Section
135 of Electricity Act is upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year 2005,
appellant remained in custody for 2 days. The prosecution has not brought any
past criminal antecedent of the appellant on record and there is no minimum
sentence has been prescribed under Section 136 of Electricity Act at that time, I
deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the appellant to the extent of the
period which he has already undergone and accordingly, the jail sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone by him and the sentence of fine
amount and default clause is maintained. The appellant is on bail, his personal
bond and bail bond be discharged. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.
9. It is, however, made clear that in case appellant fail to deposit the fine
amount, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice to him and may proceed
against him in accordance with law. However, in case appellant deposit the
amount of fine within sixty days from the receipt of certified copy of this
judgment, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
m/-
