Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanti Lal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:44053) on 15 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:44053]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 110/2014
Kanti Lal S/o Narayanlal, B/c Yadav, Aged about 23 years, R/o
Deval Khas Fala, Yadav Basti, PS Sadar Dungarpur, District
Dungarpur.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuj Sahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
15/12/2023
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 31.01.2014
passed by learned Special Judge, (Offence relating to Electricity
Act), Dungarpur cum Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Case
No.01/2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby,
the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for offence
under Sections 136 of Electricity Act and sentenced him to
undergo two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo three months' S.I.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an FIR for offence
under Section 379 IPC and Section 138 of Electricity Act came to
be registered at PS Sadar, District Dungarpur on the basis of a
written report submitted by Yogesh Panchal, J.En., AVVNL,
Bichhiwada on 06.01.2013. In the FIR, it was alleged that on
04.01.2013, the complainant received an information from the
[2023:RJ-JD:44053] (2 of 4) [CRLA-110/2014]
villagers that some unknown persons committed theft of a Single
Phase Transformer, situated near Gamadi Deval Panchayat
Bhawan, due to which supply of electricity was disturbed.
During investigation, accused-appellant and other accused
persons were arrested. After thorough investigation, the Police
filed challan against the accused persons including the appellant.
Thereafter, learned court below framed charge for offence
under Sections 136 of Electricity Act against the accused-appellant
and other accused persons. They denied the charges and claimed
for trial.
During trial, eleven prosecution witnesses were examined
and certain documents were got exhibited. Thereafter statements
of the accused persons including the appellant Section 313 Cr.P.C.
were recorded.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
judgment dated 31.01.2014 convicted the accused-appellant for
offence under Sections 136 of Electricity Act and sentenced him as
aforesaid.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the
occurrence has taken place in the year 2013 and the accused
appellant has already served a period of six months in custody,
out of total sentence of two years' R.I., therefore, it is prayed that
the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the
aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone
by him. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Vaithi @ Vaithianathan Vs. State of Tamil
[2023:RJ-JD:44053] (3 of 4) [CRLA-110/2014]
Nadu, Cr. Appeal Nos.1870-1871 of 2010 decided on
14.11.2011 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding
the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Electricity
Act, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by
him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant and 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.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
judgment passed by the court below as well as the record of the
case.
It is not disputed that the occurrence relates to the year
2013 and the accused appellant has so far served a period of six
months in custody, out of total sentence of two years' R.I. and, so
also suffered mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus,
looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact the appellant
has remained behind the bars for six months and also keeping in
view the fact that the offence in question was committed nearly
10 years ago, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by
the trial court for offence under Section 136 of Electricity Act is
reduced from two years' R.I. to the period already undergone by
the appellant.
In the case of Vaithi @ Vaithianathan (Supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court while maintaining the conviction of the accused for
offence under Electricity Act, reduced the sentence to the period
already undergone by the accused, which is about thirteen days.
[2023:RJ-JD:44053] (4 of 4) [CRLA-110/2014]
In the present case also, the accused-appellant has suffered about
six months' sentence, out of total sentence of two years.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While
maintaining the appellant's conviction for offence under Section
136 of Electricity Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine imposed
by the trial court is hereby maintained. Three months' time is
hereby granted to deposit the fine, failing which the appellant
shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The appellant is
on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
196-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
