Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrakant @ Pappu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2130 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
CHANDRAKANT @ PAPPU S/O HARI PRASAD DWIVEDI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
PS. DEVENDRANAGAR, PANNA, DISTRICT PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THR.SHO,DEVENDRA NAGAR, PANNA DISTRICT PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - 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 dated 26/9/2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
(Electricity Act), Panna in Special Case No.5/2004 whereby the appellant has
been convicted under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 6 months.
2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Shri Vijay Pandey,
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 3/2/2004, it was found that appellant is
unauthorisedly using electricity in his house. The said connection was took
directly from low tension electricity line of Electricity Board, and thus
committing theft of electricity. On that, panchnama was prepared by the
complainant and electricity wire was seized from the spot and appellant was
directed to deposit the arrears of amount of 2000/- for causing loss to the
electricity department and when he failed 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. It is submitted by learned counsel that the incident is of the
year 2004 since then the appellant is facing mental agony. It is also submitted
that at the time of offence, the appellant was of 39 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 26/9/2005 convicted the appellant under Section 135 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
2004. 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 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
therefore, I deem it proper and having due regard to the facts of the case, the
sentence of imprisonment is set-aside while maintaining the civil liability, if any.
9 . Accordingly, the jail sentence of the appellant under Section 135 of the
Electricity Act is set-aside while maintaining the civil liability if any. The
appellant is on bail, his personal bond and bail bond be discharged.
10. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.
11. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
m/-
