Bhimsen vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16419 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 257/2021 Bhimsen S/o Shri Omprakash, Aged About 39 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Jogiwala, Ps Lalgarh Jattan, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In Jail Sri Ganganagar).

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Sri Ganganagar Vidhyut Vitrana Nigam Ltd.

                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. N.K. Sharma
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Pradeep Sharma



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                Judgment

28/10/2021

Instant criminal appeals have been filed by the appellant

under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated

30.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (Electricity Theft

Cases) and Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar in

Sessions Case No. 04/2019 by which the learned Judge convicted

the appellant for offence under Section 135 Electricity Act and

sentenced him for a period of two years simple imprisonment

with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to

further undergo 15 days S.I.

Brief facts of the case are that on 27.08.2016, the Junior

Engineer, JVVNL , Sriganganagar made a sudden inspection of the

house of appellant and found him having illegal wire connection

from the main electric line.

(2 of 3) [CRLAS-257/2021]

The police registered the FIR and started investigation. After

investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant

for offence under Section 135 Electricity Act. Thereafter, the

charges of the case were framed against the appellant. He denied

the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined nine

witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter,

statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No

witness was examined on the defence side.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 30.01.2021 convicted and sentenced

the appellant for offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act as

mentioned earlier.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant does not

challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the

appellant has been awarded two years sentence for offence under

Section 135 of Electricity Act and he has already served the

substantive sentence and only the sentence in default of payment

of fine is left. It is prayed that the amount of fine imposed upon

the appellant may be waived and the appellant may be ordered to

be released.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent

JVVNL opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for

the appellant. Counsel submitted that there is neither any

occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused

appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said

case.

                                                                            (3 of 3)                       [CRLAS-257/2021]


                                        Since    the   appellant's      counsel        does         not   challenge   the

appellant's conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of

the case and accordingly, the conviction of the appellant as

recorded by the learned trial court for the offence under Section

135 of Electricity Act is maintained.

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as

defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding

conviction of the accused-appellant. It is not disputed that the

appellant has already served the substantive sentence so also

suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking

to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has

remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and

proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under

Section 135 of Electricity Act is reduced to the period undergone

by him while waiving the amount of fine.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining

the appellant's conviction and sentence for offence under Section

135 of Electricity Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to

the period already undergone and the amount of fine is hereby

waived. Since the appellant has also served the period of

imprisonment, he may be released forthwith, if not required in any

other case.

The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

9-BJSH/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)