Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 November, 2025
1
Cr.A.No.1745/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 06th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1745/2016
BALRAM SINGH
VS.
ELECTRICITY BOARD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Appellant by Shri V.R. Jumre, Advocate.
Respondent by Shri Kush Singh, Advocate.
................................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
Heard finally.
2. This criminal appeal u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment
dated 20.06.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, designated under the
Electricity Act, Narsinghpur, in Special Case No.943/2013, thereby
convicting the appellant/accused for commission of offence under
Section 138 of The Electricity Act, 2003 and sentencing with RI for six
months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the first
informant/complainant Shri P.K. Dhurve, Executive Engineer,
MPPKVV Co. made a complaint stating that in spite of disconnection of
electricity on account of non-payment of outstanding bill, the
appellant/accused illegally restored the electric connection and was
found committing electricity theft and after inspection, panchnama was
prepared. On that basis, an offence punishable under section 138 of the
Electricity Act was registered.
3.1 After completion of investigation, a final report was filed
before the Special Court.
3.2 At trial, the appellant/accused abjured his guilty and pleaded
false implication. While considering the evidence available on record,
the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused as mentioned above.
Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the
appellant was fallaciously implicated in the crime and the court below
has erred in believing the statement of the witnesses and thereby
convicting the appellant. He submitted that the appellant is facing the
criminal case since 2013. Thus, the appeal may be allowed and the
appellant/accused may be acquitted.
5. E-converso, learned counsel for the respondent has
supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
and submitted that the appellant/accused has been rightly convicted on
the fulcrum of evidence adduced before the trial Court and thus the
appeal deserves dismissal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. Indeed, in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
has examined as many as two witnesses before the trial Court. Shri P.K.
Dhurve (PW1), then Executive Engineer, has categorically stated that
the appellant/accused did not make the payment of outstanding
electricity bill and thereafter the electric connection was disconnected
on 01.02.2013, however, on inspection made on 13.02.2013 it was found
that the appellant/accused had illegally restored the electric connection
by himself and thus he had committed the offence of electricity theft by
the appellant/accused. Reiterating and corroborating the version of
(PW1), other prosecution witness has narrated in the same line.
8. The learned trial Court has meticulously discussed the
prosecution evidence available on record. The discrepancies appear in
the statements of witnesses are minimal and can be ignored. The
statement of P.K. Dhurve (PW1) is fully corroborated by the statement
of other witness.
9. In Johar and Ors. v. Mangal Prasad & Anr., AIR 2008
SC 1165, it has been opined that if the order of the trial Court not found
to be passed without considering relevant evidence or passed by
considering irrelevant evidence, interference by entering into merits and
re-appreciating entire evidence would be improper.
10. The finding of the Court below is based on the evidence
adduced on record which is not required to be re-appreciated in detail by
this Court. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution
has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the
appellant/accused and therefore the trial Court did not commit any error
in convicting the appellant/accused. Ergo, the judgment of conviction is
hereby upheld.
11. So far as the quantum of the sentence is concerned, the
appellant/accused has been sentenced for the offence under Section 138
of Electricity Act, for six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. It appears from the record as well as
from the impugned judgment that there is no criminal antecedents of the
appellant/accused. He is the first offender. Appellant/accused is facing
criminal prosecution since 2013 and is a financially depleted person.
Looking to the age of the appellant/accused and being first offender, in
the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would meet the
ends of justice if the jail sentence is awarded for till rising of the Court
and instead of enhancing fine, it would be appropriate to impose
adequate compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C..
12. In view of the above, the sentence awarded by the trial
court to the appellant/accused is reduced to the period, till rising of the
Court, and the appellant/accused shall pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand) as compensation to the complainant/department. In default to
suffer four months simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if already
deposited, shall be adjusted against the compensation amount so
imposed. Appellant/accused is directed to deposit the compensation
amount within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. Thereafter
the trial Court shall disburse the same to the complainant/department. In
case of failure to deposit the compensation amount within 15 days, the
trial court shall take necessary steps to get the appellant/accused served
the default sentence, as directed above.
13. Subject to above, since appellant/accused is on bail, his
bail bonds shall stand discharged. Record be sent back to the Court
below along with a copy of this judgment.
14. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is disposed of.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
sudesh
