Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Nath Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23286
1 CRA-648-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 648 of 2007
SHIV NATH MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vinod Tiwari - Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Shri Ashok Sinha - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on:- 04.01.2024 sitting at Jabalpur.
Posted on:- 14.05.2025 sitting at Indore.
..........................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated
13.03.2007 in Special Case No.24 of 2005 by Special Judge under
Electricity Act, 2003 whereby appellant/accused has been convicted under
Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and has been sentenced to 6 months
R.I. and a find of Rs 32,088/- with default stipulations of 6 months R.1.
2. Facts in brief are that flying squad of the Electricity Board
consisting of Surendra Kumar Lamba, Lineman Girja Prasad and on Chtkau
Singh made a surprise inspection of Adarsh Vidhyalaya, Devsar run by
appellant on 21.09.2015 and during the inspection it was reveled that the
appellant was engaged in illegally utilizing the electric supply. Panchnama
Ex P-5 was prepared and PV Aluminum wire of black color in two pieces
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23286
2 CRA-648-2007
was recovered as per Ex P-6. Thereafter amount of theft to the tune of
Rs.10,969/- was fixed with a direction to pay the same within seven days. On
failure of the appellant to deposit the said amount within stipulated period of
seven days, Surendra Kumar Lamba (PW-3) lodged a written report (Ex.P-2)
and Sub-Engineer P. Prasad (PW-1) on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P-1) was
recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector C.L. Sharma (PW-5).
3. Appellant pleaded not guilty and advanced the defence that he went
to the Office of Electricity Board on 24.09.2004 to deposit the amount in
question but he asked to pay additional sum of Rs.2,000/- and was further
directed to deposit the requisite charges in the Court.
4. Trial Court recorded the evidence of Sub-Engineer P. Prasad as
PW-1, Girja Prasad as PW-2, Surendra Kumar Lamba, Assistant Engineer as
PW-3, Chotkau Singh, lineman as PW-4, ASI CL Sharma as PW-5.
5. Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. appellant/accused advanced the same
defence and examined Love Prasad Mishra as DW-1 and K.K. Chaturvedi as
DW-2 in his defence.
6. Appreciating the evidence, trial Court convicted the
appellant/accused under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and
sentenced as per para-1 of the judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment,
this appeal has been preferred on the ground that appellant was given 7 days
time to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,969/- yet the report Ex.P-1 filed on
23.09.2004 i.e. before the expiry of the stipulated period, thus denied the
opportunity to make the payment. Offence is compoundable and he was not
afforded adequate opportunity to exercise the right of compounding of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23286
3 CRA-648-2007
offences. Trial Court has ignored the material contradiction and omission in
the version of the statement of the witnesses, seizure of bulb, fans etc. were
carried out, conviction cannot be sustained.
7. Heard.
8. Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction and sentence.
9. Perused the record.
10. Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be exercised as of
right by the appellant/accused, on this ground appeal does not succeed. On
perusal of testimony of P. Prasad Vaisya (PW-1), Girja Prasad (PW-2),
Surendra Kumar Lamba (PW-3), Chotkau Singh (PW-4), C.L. Sharma (PW-
5) it is established that appellant/accused was using electricity without
connection from the MPEB. Defence advanced through L.P. Mishra (DW-1),
K.K. Chaturvedi (DW-2) does not mitigate the offence accordingly,
conviction of appellant under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 does not
call for interference and conviction of appellant/accused under Section 135
Electricity Act, 2003 is affirmed. Appellant/accused has been under custody
for a period of 6.10.2004 to 20.10.2004 and he has also deposited a fine
receipt No.25 dated 13.03.2007 book No.400. Amount Rs.5000/- and receipt
No.27 dated 16.03.2007, book no.400, amount Rs.27,088/-. These amount of
fine is three times to the assessed through Ex.P-7 accordingly appellant does
not require further sentence of imprisonment, accordingly this appeal is
partly allowed.
11. Maintaining the conviction of appellant/accused under Section 135
Electricity Act, 2003, the sentence is modified to the period of imprisonment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23286
4 CRA-648-2007
of 156days that has been already under gone and a fine of Rs.32,088/- which
has already been deposited. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
DPS/akanksha
