Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan Singh Thakur vs M.P.Poorva Khestra Vidyut Vitran ... on 8 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 688 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
LAKHAN SINGH THAKUR S/O DEVI SINGH THAKUR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O VILL.GORA KHAS PS.
KHARGAPUR, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
M.P. POORVA KHESTRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY
TI K A M G A R H , DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MANISH MUKHRAIYA - 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 Electricity Act, Tikamgarh in Special
Case No.282/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section
135(1)(A) of Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months
with fine of 34,152/-, and in default, to further undergo RI for three-months.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Seema Sahu, 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 24.06.2006, when the officers of
Electricity Company Ltd. were on inspection, he found appellant un-
authorisedly using electricity in his house. The said connection was took
directly from electricity supply, and thus found committing theft of electricity.
On that, panchnama was prepared by the flying squad, and seized 30feet wire,
bulb and other electric wire from the spot and assessment of Rs.11000/- was
made against him, on his failure to deposit the aforesaid 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. It is submitted by learned counsel that the incident is of the
year 2006 since then the appellant is facing mental agony. It is also submitted
that at the time of offence, the appellant was of 58 years of age. The appellant
is first offender. it is also submitted that the fine amount has already been
deposited by the appellant (as mentioned in the appeal memo). 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 19/3/2009 convicted the appellant under Section 135(1)(A) of
Electricity Act and sentenced as stated herein above. 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(1)(A)
of Electricity Act is upheld.
8. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year 2006
and appellant is facing mental agony since then. He did not misuse the liberty
granted to him under the bail. The prosecution has not brought any past
criminal antecedents of the appellant on record and there is no minimum
sentence has been prescribed under Section 135(1)(A) of Electricity Act, the
sentence of imprisonment up to the period of 3 years or fine amount or with
both is prescribed under the Act and the fine amount has already been
deposited by the appellant. Therefore, I deem it proper to set aside the jail
sentence of the appellant and accordingly, the jail sentence is set aside but the
sentence of fine amount is maintained. Order of the trial Court regarding
disposal of the property is also maintained. The appellant is on bail, his
personal bond and bail bond be discharged.
9. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.
10. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
m/-
