Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Singh vs State Of M.P. on 7 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 838 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
MAHESH SINGH S/O SAUDAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 27
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O GRAM
CHANDANA, TEH.AND DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. GAGNEET SETHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH MPSEB.,ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY DIVISION (WESTERN REGION) DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( BY SHRI MAYANK MISHRA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374of Cr.P.C.
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.07.2008 passed by the learned
Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), Dewas in Case No. 07/2007. By the
impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the
offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo one
year R.I. with fine of Rs.27,036/- with civil liability of Rs.72,096/-.
2. According to prosecution story, the allegation against the appellant is of theft
of electricity directly from the electric line. Accordingly, case has been
registered against the appellant and after investigation, police filed charge-sheet
against the appellant before the trial Court.
3. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant, which was denied by the
appellant. The trial Court found the appellant guilty for offence under the
aforesaid Section and convicted him as aforesaid.
4. The appellant challenges the aforesaid conviction on the ground that the
appellant has been convicted only on the basis of complaint and the evidence of
PW-1, but the perusal of the complaint and evidence clearly establishes that the
entire story has been concocted to fasten false liability on the appellant. It is
further submitted that Court below erred in convicting the appellant inspite of
there being material contradictions in the complaint and the evidence produced
on record. It is also submitted that the trial Court has imposed the civil liability
in excess which is in derogation of the provisions of Sections 154 and 126 of
the Electricity Act, 2003. On these grounds, he prays for setting aside the
impugned judgment and acquittal of the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and prays
for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Now question arises whether the trial Court has committed error in
convicting the appellant?
7. After hearing he learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, it is found that PW-1 A.K.Jain, Assistant Engineer stated that there was
theft of electricity amounting to Rs.9.012/-. According to the provisions of
Section 126 of the Electricity Act, three times of the theft of electricity must be
assessed and civil liability must be double. So, considering the evidence
available on record, the trial Court has not committed any error in holding the
appellant guilty under Section 135 of the Electricity Act with fine of Rs.27,036/-
and civil liability of Rs.72,096/-. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 135 of the Electricity Actis upheld.
8. So far as the sentence is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances
of the case, as also the fact that the incident is of the year 2006 and appellant is
facing trial since then, hence, in the opinion of this Court, the jail sentence of the
appellant deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside with fine as
imposed by the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above. A
copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information.
C.C. as per rules.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
RJ
