Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51449
1 CRA-2437-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2437 of 2015
RAMESH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri M.P. Tripathi - Advocate for appellants.
Shri manoj Kushwaha - PL for the respondent/State.
ORDER
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the appellants are assailing the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 18.08.2015 delivered by Ist Additional Session Judge,
Burhanpur in ST No. 13/2015 whereby the appellants have been convicted for
commission of offence punishable under Section 136 of Electricity Act, 2003 and
sentenced to undergo RI for 01 year with fine of Rs.5000/- each with default
stipulations. The fine amount have already been deposited by the appellants.
2. Briefly stating the case of the case is that the complainant Shriram s/o
Bhaulal Mahajan aged about 50 years, Lineman MPEB office Shanwara has
lodged FIR on 25.03.2011 at about 8:20 p.m. against unknown person regarding
the theft of the wire about 150 meter and thereafter, stolen articles were seized
from the possession of present applicant by the police.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to
press this appeal on the point of conviction. He further submits that the incident is
of the year 2011, the appellants have no criminal antecedents. The appellants are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51449
2 CRA-2437-2015
young persons, age of the appellant Anish is 19 years only at the time of incident.
There is no mens rea behind the incident. The appellants have remained in
custody for 03 days, therefore, it is prayed that a liberal view on the point of
sentence may be taken.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. Though, the appellants have not assailed the findings of conviction on
merits and has confined his submissions only to the question of sentence; this
Court, is nonetheless under a legal obligation to scrutinize the correctness and
sanctity of the conviction recorded by the trial Court. On this aspect, I have
carefully perused the judgment of the trial Court and the evidence adduced during
trial. The complainant's case is not only corroborated by the testimony of the eye-
witnesses, but also stands duly supported by other materials placed on record.
The trial Court, while appreciating the entire evidence in its proper perspective,
has arrived at a well-reasoned finding of guilt against the appellants. Upon
independent reappraisal, I find that the conclusion so recorded by the trial Court
is based on cogent reasoning and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality
warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the finding of conviction of
the appellants under the aforesaid provisions of law is hereby upheld.
6. In the present case, considering the fact that this appeal has been
pending since the year 2015, and further taking into account that the appellants
have been undergoing mental agony during this prolonged period, coupled with
the circumstance that the prosecution has not brought on record any past criminal
antecedents of the appellants, and that they have not misused the liberty granted
to them while on bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence of
imprisonment deserves to be and is hereby modified to the extent already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51449
3 CRA-2437-2015
undergone by the appellants which is 03 days.
7. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 136 of the
Indian Electricity Act are maintained; however, the sentence of imprisonment for
one year with fine of Rs.5000/- as awarded to the appellants by learned Trial
Court is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the
appellants, which is 03 days and the fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to
Rs. 10,000/-each.
8. Appellants are directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount as
quantified by this Court before the trial Court within a period of one month from
today. The amount of fine under Section 136 of Electricity Act, if any, already
deposited be adjusted. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by
this Court is not deposited within a period of one month from today, appellants
would surrender themselves to serve out the entire jail sentence as awarded by the
learned trial Court with default stipulations.
9. The appellants are on bail, their personal bond and bail bond stand
discharged.
10. Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
11. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands disposed of to the extent
indicated herein above.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
PG
