[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Omprakash Satnami vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution … on 24 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:18674
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2016
Omprakash Satnami S/o Narhar Satnami Aged About 33 Years R/o House
No. 173, Sendripali Harijan Muhalla, Village Sendripali, Tehsil Kartala,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Assistant
Engineer Office Sanchaar Evam Soodhar, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. R.L. Rajak, Advocate appears on behalf
of Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
—————————————————————————————–
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Judgment on Board
24.04.2025
1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.’) questioning
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.12.2015
(Annexure A-1) passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), District
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Electricity Criminal Case No.52/2012, whereby
the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Digitally signed
by VASANT
VASANT KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.04.30
10:49:02
+0530
2Conviction Sentence In Default of
Payment of Fine
Under Section 135 Fine amount of RI for 06 months
(A-1) of the Electricity Rs.46,000/-
Act, 2003
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.02.2011 at 03:20 pm, the
staff of respondent company, during search, raided the house of the
appellant and thereby found that the appellant was using 01 heater, 01
halogen, 02 bulbs & 01 ceiling fan inside his house by hooking from L.T.
Line and consuming 2160 watt power. Allegedly the respondent, after
finding that the appellant was committing theft of electricity, prepared
Panchnama report and served its copy to the appellant there itself. The
signatures of the appellant were taken at many places in the Panchnama
Report. Thereafter, seizure of 10 meter wires was made and a seizure
report was prepared by the officer of respondent company in presence of
two witnesses who are employees of the company, but the other electric
articles which were allegedly being used by the appellant were not seized.
3. On 12.02.2011, notice for payment of Rs.40,558 (forty thousand five
hundred fifty eight rupees) for unauthorized consumption of electricity by
the appellant was sent to the appellant. The aforesaid notice was returned
with a note that “the wife of the appellant namely Heera Bai refused to
accept the bill”. It is submitted that the actual name of wife of the
appellant is Dhan Bai and not Heera Bai. For this purpose the appellant
has already produced the evidence in support, which was taken on record
3
by the trial Court.
4. In order to prove the charges against the appellant (accused), prosecution
examined as many as 04 witnesses. Statement of appellant was also
recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and
false implication. However, defence witness was examined by the
appellant himself.
5. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the appellant for commission of offence
punishable under Section 135 (1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Hence,
this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned
trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant without any
sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the
appellant. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the evidence on record and has also failed to consider various
case laws propounded by the Hon’ble High Court in cases of theft of
electricity. The reasoning of learned trial Court for holding the appellant
guilty is against the settled principles of law because the evidence on
record are not sufficient to prove the charge on the appellant. He further
contended that as per complaint filed by the respondent, the appellant
took direct connection from L.T. Line by hooking and was using bulbs,
ceiling fan, heater and halogen; the respondent only seized the wires
4
through which the appellant took unauthorized connection and did not
seize the other electronic articles which were being used by the appellant.
Since complainant/respondent company has not the seized
aforementioned articles, the respondent has failed to establish that the
aforementioned articles were used by the appellant and thus the
respondent has failed to proof that appellant was committing theft of
electricity. He further contended that only 4 witnesses have been
examined by respondent in the case and all of them belong to the
respondent company and are interested witnesses. There is no other
independent seizure witness as is required by provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure.
7. It is further contended that as per the complaint filed by the respondent,
theft was being committed by the appellant at his residence situated at
village Chhote Rabeli, PS Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
In this regard, the appellant produced a certificate before learned trial
Court which was issued by Sarpanch of village Sendaripali. Tehsil
Kartala, District- Korba (C.G.) (Exhibit D-3). In that certificate, it was
certified by Sarpanch that appellant is a permanent resident of village
Sendaripali and he resides there only with his wife namely Dhan Bai.
This has been overlooked by the learned trial court while passing the
impugned judgment. Further, the respondent has stated in the complaint
that the appellant took direct connection from L.T. Line to his house at
village Chhote Rabeli, so the burden lies on the respondent to prove that
5
the said offence was committed by the appellant at his residence which is
situated at village Chhote Rabeli, but the respondent has failed to prove
so. Whereas the evidence produced by the appellant reveals the actual
residence of the appellant which makes the story of respondent doubtful.
So the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the reason that the
learned trial court has failed to apply the mandatory legal provisions of
Evidence Act. He lastly contended that the appellant has already been
paid the fine amount of Rs.46,000/- vide Annexure A-2. In view of this
fact, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned
order dated 01.12.2015 (Annexure A-1) and this Court be further pleased
to pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the argument
raised by counsel for the appellant, supported the impugned judgment
and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper
and requires no interference.
9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and
perused the record of the trial Court and other material available on
record with utmost circumspection.
10. Line Inspector Budhram Mannewara (PW-4) has stated that on the date of
the incident, he was posted at CG RVV. Malkharoda. On 11.02.2011,
Junior Engineer R.K. Agrawal, Junior Engineer R.P. Nayak, Helper
Yogesh Chandra went to village Chhote Raveli to investigate electricity
6
theft. While investigating, when they reached the premises of the
accused, they saw that electricity was being used illegally by hooking
directly to the LT line. Then, an investigation team was formed on the
spot by the investigating officer. The formation of the investigation team
is Exhibit P-3. After the formation of the investigation team, the accused
himself was called from the premises. He was asked by Agrawal sahab
about whose premises it was. The accused told that the premises
belonged to him and when asked who had hooked the wire to the LT line,
he told that it was installed by the accused himself. After receiving the
information, the electrical investigation of the premises was done, during
investigation, it was found that the accused had hooked the wire to the LT
line. He was found to be using a 1500 watt heater, a halogen, a fan and a
bulb illegally in his premises by hooking it directly to the line.
Panchanama Ex.P-4 was prepared by the investigating officer in his
presence at the spot. After the Panchanama proceedings, 02 pieces of
black wire being used by hooking to the LT line were seized by the
investigating officer, in respect of which the seizure was recorded in his
presence at the spot. The seizure memo is Ex.P-5. The spot map was
prepared by the investigating officer. The spot map is Ex.P-6. The
accused had also signed all the forms prepared by the investigating
officer at the spot.
11. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with theft of electricity.
The said Section is reproduced herein below :-
7
“135. Theft of Electricity. [(1) Whoever, dishonestly,-
(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with
overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service
wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case
may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current
reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or
method which interferes with accurate or proper registration,
calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in
a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment,
or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or
destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of
electricity; or
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the
usage of electricity was authorised,so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine
or with both:
Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used
or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use–
(i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first
conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on
account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or
subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six
times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity;
(ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction
shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of
such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent
conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not
8less than six months, but which may extend to five years and
with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of
such theft of electricity:
Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction
of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted
abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt,
such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a
period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years
and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period
from any other source or generating station:
Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not
authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for
the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be
presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or
use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.
(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or
supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity,
immediately disconnect the supply of electricity:
Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorised
for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the
licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so
authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity:
Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case
may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such
offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty-four hours from the
time of such disconnection:
Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on
deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance
with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to
lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore
the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or
9payment.]
(2) [Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be, authorised] in
this behalf by the State Government may–
(a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or
premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity
[has been or is being], used unauthorisedly;
(b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments,
wires and any other facilitator or article which 1 has been, or
is being, used for unauthorised use of electricity;
(c) examine or seize any books of account or documents
which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any
proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1)
and allow the person from whose custody such books of
account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or
take extracts therefrom in his presence.
(3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf
shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized
in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such
occupant or person who shall sign the list:
Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any
domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between
sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member
occupying such premises.
(4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and
seizure under this Act.
12. It is undisputed fact that on the date of incident, when the Officials of the
Electricity Department reached the premises of the appellant for
10
inspection, they found that the appellant committing theft of electricity by
hooking the same and thereby caused financial loss to the Electricity
Department.
13. The appellant has also not stated anything concrete in his defence except
that he does not know and that he has been falsely implicated. In my
opinion, the above chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to
one conclusion that it was the accused/appellant who has committed the
aforesaid crime. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the
appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on
evidence available on record and I am of the opinion that in the present
case, the only view possible was the one taken by the trial Court. Since the
appellant has theft of electricity, hence, offence under Section 135 (1-A)
of the Electricity Act, 2003 is fully proved against the appellant.
14. Since the commission of offence under Section 135 (1-A) of the
Electricity Act, 2003 has been duly proved, the learned trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellant and imposed the fine sentence under the
aforesaid offence.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made
by counsel for the respective parties, provisions of Section 135(1-A) of
the Electricity Act, 2003 and the appellant has already been paid the
fine amount of Rs.46,000/- vide Annexure A-2.
16. From the above analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the
11
prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable
doubt and the said finding recorded by the trial Court is based upon the
evidence available on record which is not perverse nor contrary to the
records. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court that the trial Court
has rightly convicted the appellant and imposed the fine sentence for
the aforesaid offence. I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the
findings recorded by the trial Court.
17. In view of above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that
the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable
doubts against the appellant. The conviction and fine sentence as
awarded by the trial Court against the appellant is hereby
affirmed/maintained.
18. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant
[ad_2]
Source link