2026:CGHC:17581 The date when The date when The date when the the judgment the judgment is judgment is uploaded on is reserved pronounced the website Operative Full

17.03.2026 17.04.2026 -- 17.04.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 17.03.2026 Judgment delivered on : 17.04.2026 CRA No. 1150 of 2007

1 - Johat Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-01-2021.

1.1 - Ainek Ram Sahu S/o Late Johat Ram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sirsida, P.S. And Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtrari Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

CAV Judgment

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellant, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2007, passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 12/2007, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and imposed the following sentence:-

2. According to the prosecution, on 01.02.2006, Shri S.K.

Chakraborty, Executive Engineer (Vigilance), Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, received secret telephonic information that electricity theft was being committed using a magnet at the Huller Mill of accused Johtaram Sahu, situated in Village Sirsida under Kurud Distribution Centre. Acting on this information, Shri Chakraborty, along with his team, conducted an inspection at the said premises. During inspection, it was found that the electric meter connections were tampered, as the R-phase was reversed, Due to this manipulation, the meter was not correctly recording electricity consumption, There were signs of tampering on the meter and the accused was allegedly stealing electricity by using a magnet, which was produced by his son, Virendra Sahu. A spot inspection panchnama was prepared in the presence of witnesses and the accused signed the same. The meter and connected wires were seized and handed over to the Junior Engineer. Thereafter, Junior Engineer Neelkanth Chandrakar lodged a complaint at Police Station Kurud, on the basis of which an FIR was registered. During investigation: A site map was prepared, Witness statements were recorded, The accused was arrested, and Relevant documents and seized articles were taken into custody. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 10.07.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, against the accused for offences under Section 379 IPC and Sections 135/39 of the Electricity Act. Since the matter was triable by a Special Court, it was committed and transferred to the Special Court (Electricity Act). The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The accused/appellant denied the same in toto, pleaded innocence and asserted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In support of his defence, the accused/appellant examined one witness namely Enakram Sahu as D.W.-1.

4. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, found the prosecution case to be credible and trustworthy. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 14.12.2007, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as detailed in para 1 of the said judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are illegal, unjust and contrary t