IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas C.R.A. 509 of 2005 Bidyut Kumar Mahato -Versus-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellants : Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, Mr. Kashiwar Ghosal.

For the State : Mr. Joydeep Roy, Ld. Jr. Govt. Adv.

Ms. Sujata Das Hearing concluded on : 20.06.2025 Judgment On : 26.06.2025 Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia. in Electric G.R. Case No. 22 of 2005.

2. By the aforesaid judgment the Trial Court has found this appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

3. The facts leading to the appeal in short are as follows:

“On 23.04.2005 one Sanjay Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Jhalda (O & M) Sub-Division, Purulia lodged the written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Arsha Police Station stating, interalia that on 23.04.2005 at 3.30 P.M. he along with Shri Swapan Kumar Chatterjee, AE (C) PRLDC and Sri Priya Ranjan Kar, SM, Arsha GE/S entered into the premises of this appellant and inspected his service connection and WBSEB property being meter no. HH308487 make India meters Ltd. F/R 02314.8 installed at the premises of the said appellant. During inspection theft of electricity was detected under Section 135(1)(b) of Electricity Act, 2003 as theft of electricity was detected during inspection by bypassing of incoming service wire and the meter was uninstalled. A copy of seizure list/ inspection report was handed over to the accused at the site and this appellant was arrested on spot by the police of Arsha Police Station.”

4. On the basis of the said complaint the case was registered by the Arsha Police Station being Case No.12/2005 dated 23.04.2005 under Section 135(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code against this appellant.

5. After completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against these accused persons under Section 135(1)(b) of the Electricity Act and under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against this appellant.

6. The charge was framed by the Trial Court against this appellant under Section 135(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act.

7. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses and also relied upon some documents which are marked exhibits in this case. Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused person.

8. Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant said that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is full of surmises and conjectures and based on mere hypothesis. It is said by the learned Advocate that the evidences of the prosecution witnesses were not correctly appreciated by the learned Trial Court and for that reason the impugned and order cannot stand under the eye of law. Moreover, this appellant has paid the amount of electricity charges assessed by the authority and in view of the provisions of Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the Trial Court could not be proceeded with. It is further said by the learned Advocate that only the individual witness who cited in this case as PW6 did not state anything regarding the allegation made by the prosecution against this appellant.

9. Mr. Joydeep Roy, learned Advocate for the State supported the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

10. I have gone through the ocular/documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and considered the submissions advanced by the counsels for the parties.

11. Now question arises whether the Trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant?

12. PW1, Sanjay Kuma