Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR
Shiv Pal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - The accused faced charge for committing an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The learned Special Judge under the Electricity Act, Panchkula, qua the afore drawn charge, made a verdict of conviction, on 09.9.2011, qua the accused. Moreover, the learned Special Judge concerned, also proceeded to sentence the convict, to pay a fine of Rs. 29,80,602/-, and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. However, the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused, during investigation or hearing of the case, was through the mandate, as carried in Section 428 Cr.P.C, hence ordered to be set off against the afore period of default sentence, imposed upon the convict.
2. The aggrieved convict assailed the afore drawn verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence (supra), through his instituting the instant Criminal Appeal No. S-2480-SB of 2011, before this Court.
3. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits, that post verdict of conviction, the appellant had deposited the entire, imposed upon him, sentence of fine, comprised in a s
The post-conviction composition of the offence, as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, led to the acquittal of the accused.
The court established that a sentence can be modified based on the time already served and the circumstances of the case, even when the conviction is upheld.
Both Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act are compoundable under Section 152, and the prosecution must provide reliable evidence for conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
