The court maintained the conviction under the Electricity Act but reduced the sentence to the period already served due to mitigating circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. 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.

2. 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 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.

3. During investigation, accused-appellant and other accused persons were arrested. After thorough investigation, the Police filed challan against the accused persons including the appellant.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 v. State of Tamil 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.

8. 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.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the court below as well as the record of the case.

10. 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.

11. In the case of Vaithi @ Vaithianathan (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Cour