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

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas C.R.A. 822 of 2005 Sadananda Kumar -Versus-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Chitta Ranjan Chakraborty, Mr. Kaseshawar Ghosal, Mr. Sumit Banerjee, Mr. Puspa Rani Jaiswara.

For the State : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury.

Hearing concluded on : 21.04.2025 Judgment On : 24.04.2025 Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16th December, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia, in connection with Electric G.R. Case No. 17 of 2005. By the aforesaid judgment, the Trial Court has found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135(i)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- with default clause.

2. The facts leading to this appeal in short are as follows:

“On 09.02.2005, the S.E.B. personnel being accompanied with police personnel went to village Palpal, P.S. Arsha. On arrival at the spot, they entered into industrial place of this appellant/convict where husking machine was running and it was noticed that this appellant was consuming the electricity bypassing the meter. They inspected the meter installed therein and one inspection report was prepared by the staff who was present therein as per dictation of the officials of the S.E.B. The Assistant Engineer, S & LP Unit, Purulia Circle, West Bengal S.E.B. lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Arsha P.S. narrating the entire incident.”

3. On receipt of the said written complaint, the case was started by the concerned police station being Arsha P.S. Case No. 6/05 dated 09.02.2005 under Section 135(i)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the convict-appellant. Police investigated the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against this appellant under Section 135(i)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The charge was framed by the Trial Court under Section 135(i)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 against this appellant. This appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses and documents were marked as exhibit on behalf of the prosecution. Defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

6. Mr. Chitta Ranjan Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the appellant said that the prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove the charge against the appellant for the offence as alleged against him. It is said that the order of conviction and sentence has been made solely on the evidence of the authority concerned and the independent witness did not state anything which may support the case of the prosecution. The materials alleged to have been seized from the place of occurrence was not placed before the learned Trial Court at the time of trial and no explanation was given on behalf of the prosecution in this regard.

7. It is further said by the learned Advocate that none of the witnesses have been able to prove the ownership of the house of the accused persons. The evidences adduced by the witnesses cited on behalf of the prosecutions are not convincing and satisfactory by which it can be said that the accused is guilty for the offence as alleged against him. There are contradictory statements made by the witnesses regarding preparation of seizure list. It is said that in examination in chief PW6 stated that he prepared the seizure list but in cross-examination this witness stated that he had not prepared the seizure list. PW7 stated that the seizure list was prepared by him. The learned Advocate further said that there are contradictory statements made by the witnesses in respect of place of seizure. PW3 stated the seizur