Madras High Court
Saravanan vs The Inspector Of Police on 12 June, 2025
Crl.A(MD)No.164 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.A(MD)No.164 of 2017
Saravanan
... Appellant
Vs
The Inspector of Police,,
Thathiengarpettai Circle,
Tirchy District.
... Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal Case filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C to
set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated
18.05.2017 and the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 02
years and fine to an extent of Rs.1,000/- by reversing the same and release
the appellant from the charges as innocent and acquit the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Moorthi Kannan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:21 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.164 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment
of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli, dated 18.05.2017
made in S.C.No.1 of 2015.
2. The appellant is the sole accused, in whose name the
service connection in SC No.26/TF-IV is given for getting free electricity
connection for agricultural purposes.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 18.06.2014 at about
04.00 p.m., the Assistant Executive Enginner of Thathiengarpettai North
Division inspected the field of accused and found that the accused has
utilized the free electricity meant for agricultural purpose for constructing
his new house and consumed 24,636 units of electricity, thus, caused a
loss to the Electricity Board to the value of Rs.5,08,765/-. For the above
allegation, the accused has been charged for the offence under Section 135
of the Electricity Act, 2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:21 pm )
4. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been
filed against the accused under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. After
taking cognizance of the charge sheet, the accused was given with copies of
relevant documents and charges were framed against the accused under
Section 135 of the Electricity Act and questioned him. As the accused
denied the involvement and claimed to be tried, trial was conducted.
5. On the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined
as PW1 to PW9 and 14 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14
besides M.O.1 to M.O.4. On the side of defence, D.W.1 was examined.
When the accused was questioned with regard to the circumstances
appearing in evidence against him under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, for which the accused prayed for mercy.
6. After observing the legal mandates consequent to the
completion of trial and hearing both sides and appreciating the evidence on
record, the trial Court has found the accused guilty for the offence under
Section 135 of the Electricity Act and convicted and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:21 pm )
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3
months.
7. Aggrieved over that, the appellant/accused has preferred
this appeal.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that only when the accused is charged for the repeated offence,
the punishment of sentence can be imposed under 135 of the Electricity
Act, but for the first offence, only fine amount should be imposed. The
accused was found to have misused only 6.5kw and hence, he is entitled to
the benefit of proviso (i) of Section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act. The
accused had misused only below the load of 10kw and hence, he should be
punished only with fine.
9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the respondent police submitted that the appellant has
already been imposed with the punishment for earlier occurrence and now
he has been punished for an another similar offence. The trial Judge, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:21 pm )
viewing the oral and documentary evidence in a right perspective,
convicted the accused and therefore, no interference is warranted by this
Court.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made on either side and carefully perused the records.
11. The whole argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant is fallacious, for the reason that from the working sheet, Ex.P.3.,
it is seen that the electricity misused by the accused from the free service
connection has been arrived at by applying a formula. For the purpose of
the same, a figure 6.5954 has been shown representing the connected load
(CL).
12. Firstly, as per the formula applied by the prosecution,
23635.51 watts were deprived to be misused by the appellant through the
free electricity service connection. If 23635.51 watts are converted into
kilowatts, it is 23.635kw. So the charge against the appellant is not that he
has consumed any load below 10 kw.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:21 pm )
13. However, the appellant has misused 23635 watts
equivalent to 23.636kw. There is no leverage given under Section 135 of
the Electricity Act and nowhere, it is stated that the first offender, who is
found to have misused electricity below 10kw was to be given with a
punishment of fine only. As per Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act
irrespective of the unit consumption it is stated that a person is found
guilty for the above charge, shall be punished with an imprisonment,
which may be extended upto 3 years or with fine or with both. So there is
no basis for the claim that the accused has to be imposed with fine only
and there should not be any sentencing.
14. The appellant was served with assessment for the
wrongful consumption, he made through the agricultural connection and
that was challenged by the appellant before this Court by filing a writ
petition in WP(MD) No.17480 of 2014. It is settled that the appellant is
liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,73,095/- for the illegal consumption made by
him. The appellant did not show any satisfactory records except some
peace meal receipts to show that he had paid the entire sum of
Rs.3,73,095/- as directed by this Court in WP(MD) No.17480 of 2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:21 pm )
15. In a writ appeal filed in WA(MD) No.312 of 2023, the
writ appellate Court did not interfere with the findings of the writ Court.
But the appellant was allowed to pay the said amount in instalments.
16. Any order passed in the writ petition can be well
understood only in terms of assessment and not as fine. It is for the very
reason only a criminal Court can impose fine, at the conclusion of trial for
the charges made against the accused.
17. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted
that on an earlier occassion, the appellant has been imposed with the
punishment and now he has been punished for another offence of similar
nature. No records have been produced to show that the appellant has
already been charged for the same kind of offence.
18. Even in the charges made against the appellant, there is no
mention about the proviso (i) of Section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act. It
might be true that the prosecution has not proved that earlier similar action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:21 pm )
has been done in the service connection standing in the name of the
petitioner.
19.As far as the petitioner is concerned, he is the first
offender against whom, no previous case is pending. So without looking
into proviso (i) of Section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act, it is possible to
invoke section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, for the purpose of granting
any lenient punishment. Since the petitioner has been rightly charged as
per the formula that he had misused 23.6351kw, there is no confusion
about the amount calculated for the consumption made by the appellant.
So in all probabilities and possibilities, records would show that the
appellant had consumed 23.6351kw and the said allegation and the
resultant charges are proved. So it is not right on the part of appellant that
there was some misconstruction of charges while framing charges.
20. As per the contention of the learned Government
Advocate (Crl.Side), earlier, when the alleged service connection was in
the name of father-in-law of the appellant also similar kind of offence was
committed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:21 pm )
21. Section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act reads as 'whoever
dishonestly' and not 'wherever dishonestly'. Hence, the comparison can
be made only to the person not to the place. As per the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant, his father-in-law was the earlier owner
of the service connection and now it has been changed to the name of the
appellant. The right interpretation is that the appellant has got service
connection after it was transferred from his father-in-law.
22. Whatever may be the case, now the appellant alone is the
consumer of SC No.26/TF-IV and hence, any allegation of theft will be
punishable under Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act.
23. As the appellant is the first offender, I feel some
indulgence be shown in the matter of punishment by restricting the
punishment to fine only.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:21 pm )
24. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the effect
that
● the sentence already imposed on the appellant by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli, dated 18.05.2017 made
in S.C.No.1 of 2015 is set aside;
● the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 135(1)(e)
of the Electricity Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 3 months and
● the Trial Court is directed to recover the aforesaid fine amount
from the appellant in the manner known to law.
12.06.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
PNM
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Tiruchidrappalli
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thathiengarpettai Circle, Tirchy District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:21 pm )
R.N.MANJULA,J.
PNM
JUDGMENT IN
12.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:21 pm )
