Abid vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12501 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Abid vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                                   ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 158 of 2013

                           BETWEEN:-
                           ABID S/O AZIZ KHAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: BUSINESS BHILAT MARG NAWALPURA,
                           BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI SANJAY SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THRU.P.S.
                           BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI  MAYANK MISHRA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
                           RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                 T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                            JUDGMENT

Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure against the judgment dated 24.01.2013 passed by Special Judge, Barwani, District-Barwani in Special Electricity Criminal Case No.17/2008, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 135(1)(B) of Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced him to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs.3,54,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further SI for 3 months.

2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 27.02.2008 in evening at 5.45 p.m. officer of MPWRES namely junior engineer G.P. Parsai (PW-1), assistant

engineer, D.A. Patil (PW-2), junior engineer A.K. Mandloi (PW4) inspected

"MILAN OIL INDUSTRIES" at Kasrawad road belonging to appellant on prior information of electric theft. At the relevant time Smt. Zule Khan i.e. mother of appellant (co-accused since acquitted) was found present and she called appellant by telephoning him. During inspection, it is said that meter was found out side of campus on wall without lock in polycarbonate box. Same was inspected in presence of appellant and after removing cover, it came to light that body and sticker seals were tampered with and in this way, theft of electricity was done. The meter was sealed and memorandum was prepared at the spot.

3. In trial, trial Court framed charges against the appellant which were denied by the appellant. After trial, appellant was found guilty and he was convicted

and sentenced as indicated herein above. Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by impugned judgment and submitted that trial Court erred in law and fact in convicting the appellant under above sections when there is no evidence available on record to prove the offence. He has further submitted that there are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, therefore, their evidence should not be believed. So on all these grounds, he prays that the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant be set aside and he be acquitted from the charges.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and prayed for rejection of the appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. After considering the statements of prosecution witnesses, it is found that they are intact in their cross-examination and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence so in the considered opinion of this Court, trial court has not committed any error in holding the appellant guilty under Section 135(1)(B) of

Electricity Act, 2003, therefore, conviction Section 135(1)(B) of Electricity Act is upheld.

7. So far as the sentence is concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that the incident is of the year 2012 and appellant is facing trial since then and the trial court has also not given harsh punishment, hence, in the opinion of this Court, there is no need to sentence the appellant any more under Section Section 135(1)(B) of Electricity Act.

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment of appellant for offence under Section Section 135(1)(B) of Electricity Act is set aside and fine amount awarded by the trial court is upheld. Hence, the appellant is sentenced only to the fine amount which he has already deposited.

9. Accordingly, appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE N.R.