NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 954 of 2016 Ganga Ram Sahu S/o Tirith Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Sakeli Kala, P.S.

Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, P.L.

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)

Order on Board

02/02/2026

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.07.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 117 of 2015 by the learned Special Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 135 (1-A) of Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months.

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 31.12.2014, the officer of the Electricity Department on duty of regular investigation of Electricity Connection at Village: Sakreli Kala, Police Station: Sakti, District: Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). He found that the appellant was committing theft of Electric Power of CSPDCL by using service wire in his electricity meter. Thereafter, Panchnama and Spot Map of place of incident has been prepared, articles were seized and calculated the electric power which was being theft and calculation paper was prepared by Electricity Department and on the basis of written complaint made by the Electricity Department, FIR was registered before police of Police Station: Sakti and during the course of investigation seizure memo was prepared and the appellant was arrested. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question prosecution examined as many as total 6 witnesses. In the statement of Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, Appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter, however no defence witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him is on higher side. He submits that the appellant is a villager and the date of incident is of 31.12.2014 and more than 11 years has been elapsed and at present the appellant is aged about 55 years, therefore, the sentence imposed upon the appellant be set aside.

4. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the incident pertains to the year 2014, that the appellant is about 55 years of age as on date, and that he has been facing the lis since December 2014, this Court is of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed under Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 deserves to be set aside and instead of imprisonment it would be appropriate to impose fine upon the appellant, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is set aside. However, the appellant shall pay a fine of ₹10,000/-, which shall be deposited within a period of sixty (60) days from today, failing which the appellant shall undergo three months imprisonment. Ordered accordingly.

7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under the aforesaid Section 135 (1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is hereby maintained and the sentence of the appellant under the aforesaid provision is modified, subject to compliance with the direction regarding payment of fine as stated hereinabove.

8. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE

S