Madhya Pradesh High Court
Revaram vs Junior Engineer M.P. Paschim Kshetra ... on 29 May, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1 CRA-921-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 29 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 921 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
REVARAM S/O VIRAMJI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM JHIRNYA THANA
SATWAS TEH. KANNOD DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI AMAN BHURIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
JUNIOR ENGINEER M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITRAN CO. LTD. THRU. N.S. MANDLOI, M.P. RAJYA
VIDYUT VITRAN KENDRA TEH. KANNOD DISTT. DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NONE FR THE RESPONDENT)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.6001/2024.
On due consideration, I.A. No.6001/2024 stands disposed of.
Bailable warrant issued against the appellant stands cancelled.
With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.
Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment dated 27.07.2012 passed by Special Judge
(under Electricity Act), Kannod, District-Dewas in Electric Case No.229/2009,
whereby trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 135(1) of
2 CRA-921-2012
Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced him to undergo one year R.I. with balance
amount of Rs.11,500/- with three times fine amounting to Rs.34,500/-, with
default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 12.03.2009, assistant engineer along
with his assistants went to village-Zhirinya, Tahsil-Kannod went for recovery of
bill and inspection. On inspection, it was found that the accused was
committing theft of electricity by connecting direct line and he had no electricity
connection.
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. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. 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) of
Electricity Act, 2003, therefore, conviction Section 135(1) of Electricity Act is
upheld.
3 CRA-921-2012
6. 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) 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) 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.
