[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khayaliram vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited ... on 2 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:5721]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 223/2026
Khayaliram S/o Shri Surjaram, Aged About 60 Years, Resident
Nainasar, Tehsil- Sardarsahar, Dist.- Churu.(Sentence Of The
Appellant Has Been Temporarily Being Suspended By The Leaned
Special Judge, (Electricity Act Cases) (Sessions Judge) Churu Till
14-02-2026 Vide Its Order Dated 15-01-2026)
----Appellant
Versus
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Churu
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kishor Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
02/02/2026
1. The instant appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated
15.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Churu in Speical
Case No.159/2024, whereby the learned judge convicted the
appellant for the offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act and
sentenced him to undergo 1 years' SI with a fine of Rs.3,72,057/-
and in default of payment to further undergo 3 month SI.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal appeal are that on 05.05.2024, the
Engineer (Vigilance) Jodhpur Discom, Rajgarh, field a complaint at
the police station, Electricity Theft Prevention Team, Churu,
stating that on 26.02.2024, during an inspection conducted by the
AEN (Electricity) Jodhpur Discom, Sadulpur, at the premises of
appellant, he was found to be illegally drawing electricity and
consuming it unlawfully by connecting an illegal black colored
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:30:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5721] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-223/2026]
service line to the LT bushing of the single-phase transformer
lcoated at the back of his premises. A VCR bearing No.6636/41
was prepared on the spot. On the basis of said complaint, a FIR
No.58/2024 was registered at Police Station APT, Churu under
Section 135 of Electricity Act and after investigation police filed
charge-sheet under Section 135 of Electricity Act against the
appellant and co-accused Raj kumar.
4. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the appellant
for the above offence and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced
the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to
prove the offences, examined as many as 4 witnesses and
exhibited some documents. The accused, upon being confronted
with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section
313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent and
two documents were adduced by him. Then, after hearing the
learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and
upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court
convicted the accused for the offence as aforesaid.
4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he will not assail
conviction of the appellant and confines his arguments to the
alternative prayer of granting the benefit of probation to the
appellant. The appellant is sole earner of the family and has been
acquitted from charges under Section 411 & 413 of IPC. The
appellant shall be reformed if he is given a chance. With these
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:30:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5721] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-223/2026]
submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view,
the appellant may be given the benefit of probation.
5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to
defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the
appellant has remained behind the bars for some time and that it
was the first criminal case registered against the appellant.
7. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after
perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court
and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to
interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment
of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that :
(1) The appellant is not a habitual offender and there is nothing
on record to showing his conviction in any other criminal case;
(2) The case involves the offences under Section 135 of
Electricity Act.
(5) There is no report regarding any untoward behaviour of the
appellant during the period of bail.
9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the aforementioned mitigating circumstances, this
court is of the considered opinion that a reformative approach
should be adopted in the present case. Thus, this court while
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:30:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5721] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-223/2026]
taking lenient view towards appellant, thinks it fit that instead of
sentencing him at once to any punishment, he should be be
released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of
conviction dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Churu in Special Case No.159/2024 is affirmed. However, the
order of sentence stands modified in the manner that the
appellant is granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of the
Probation of the Offenders Act upon his furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, for a
period of two years with an undertaking to appear and receive
sentence as and when called upon by the court, in case of default
of any term and condition of the probation bond and to keep
peace and be of good behaviour during such period of two years
from the date of his entering into such bond. The bonds be
furnished before the learned trial Court. The amount of fine as
imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant
within a period of 90 days from the date of this order. The
appellant is on bail. He shall be released on probation forthwith, if
not wanted in any other case, upon satisfying the aforementioned
requirements.
11. The application seeking suspension of sentence and all other
pending applications are disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
6-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:30:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
