Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdhyan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 January, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006401
CRA-S-2013-2022 [1] 2024:PHHC:006401
239-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-2013-2022
Date of decision: 16.01.2024
Gurdhyan Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Pranav Chamoli, Advocate for the appellant.
(Legal Aid Counsel)
Mr. Vishal Kashyap, DAG, Haryana.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused
against the judgment and order dated 6/7.06.2022. passed by the Court of
Special Judge, (Electricity Act), Kaithal whereby appellant was convicted
and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 years and 10 months and to pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for commission of offence
punishable under Section 136 (2) of Electricity Act in case having FIR No.6
dated 12.01.2019 under Section 136/137 Electricity Act, 2003 Police
Station Guhla.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Tarsem Singh SDO
received complaint that wires and other material of transformers of
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006401
CRA-S-2013-2022 [2] 2024:PHHC:006401
consumer Usha Rani resident of village Chaba to the tune of Rs.37,896/-
were stolen during the mid night of 19.12.2018. On the basis of the said
complaint FIR was lodged and during investigation appellant Gurdhyan
Singh and one Jarnail Singh were arrested and they suffered disclosure
statements and Jarnail Singh got effected recovery of 5 quintal 75 kilogram
of stolen copper wire. On completion of investigation, police presented the
final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
3. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 136 and
137 of the Electricity Act to which the accused persons including the
appellant had not pleaded guilty and claim trial.
4. The prosecution examined PW-1 SI Jagbir Singh, PW-2
Tarsem Singh SDO, PW-3 E/ASI Dalbir Singh, PW-4 J.E. Hazoor Singh,
PW-5 Akashdeep J.E., PW-6 Raghbir, PW-7 ASI Ujjawal Singh, PW-8 HC
Baljit Singh and PW-9 Contable Rajender Singh and also proved documents
Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. In the meantime, the accused persons confessed their
guilt.
5. Thereafter, on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution
coupled with the fact that the accused pleaded guilty, the learned trial
Court passed impugned judgment and order dated 6/7.06.2022 whereby
appellant and Jarnail Singh were convicted and sentenced as detailed in the
first paragraph of the present judgment.
6. The appellant being aggrieved has filed the present appeal.
7. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and the State counsel.
8. The counsel for the appellant submits that as per the provision
of Section 375 (b) Cr.P.C there is very limited scope to challenge the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006401
CRA-S-2013-2022 [3] 2024:PHHC:006401
judgment dated 06.06.2022 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the
appellant was convicted under Section 136 (2) of Electricity Act on the
basis of the confession made by the appellant pleading guilty as the same
was voluntary and without threat, enducement and pressure. The counsel for
the appellant further submits that as per the custody certificate furnished by
the State counsel, the appellant has already undergone sentence for a period
of more than 3 years and 3 months. The counsel for the appellant further
submits that the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court be modified
and reduced to the period already undergone while keeping intact fine
imposed by the trial Court by taking into consideration the fact that
appellant is a poor person and is sole bread winner of his family.
9. The State counsel while supporting the impugned judgment and
order submits that there is no illegality in the same and that the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
10. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
11. As far as conviction of the appellant is concerned, no ground is
made out to interfere in the same by virtue of the provision of Section 375
Cr.P.C. So the judgment passed by the trial Court whereby the appellant
was convicted under Section 136 (2) of Electricity Act, is hereby upheld.
12. It appears that the appellant is also convicted in some other
cases under Section 136 of the Electricity Act. So, as per sub-section 2 of
Section 136, he is to be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 6
months and fine shall not be less than Rs.10,000/-. Admittedly, in the
present case the appellant has already undergone sentence for a period of 3
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006401
CRA-S-2013-2022 [4] 2024:PHHC:006401
years and 3 months. It appears that the appellant belongs to poor strata of
society and being the head of family is sole bread winner of the family. In
the given circumstances, the sentence imposed by the trial Court in the
present case is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.
However, fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the trial Court is kept intact.
13. The present appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
16.01.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006401
4 of 4
