2026:CGHC:12982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 782 of 2018 Hridayram Kalar S/o Chiteshwar Kalar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Paikin, Police Station Baramkela, District-

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Baramkela, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh..

---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Avelin Juneja Gambir, PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board

18.03.2026

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant

against the judgment dated 30.04.2018 passed by learned

Special Judge (Electricity Act), Raigarh, (CG) in Electricity

Case No.2060000019/2016, whereby appellant stands

convicted as under :-

Conviction Sentence U/s 138 (1)(b) of Rigorous imprisonment for Electricity Act, 06 months and fine of 2003. Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for

03 months.

Appellant is further directed to pay sum of Rs.87,646/- under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 towards the civil liability.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on account of non-

payment of electricity bill, the electricity supply of appellant's premises was disconnected, despite this, on inspection by the Officers of the CSEB, it was found that on 21.09.2012, the appellant has directly connected the electricity from the electric pole and consuming electricity illegally, therefore, a complaint was made before the Police Station- Baramkela, based upon which, alleged offence/crime has been registered against the appellant. The CSEB also claimed civil damages Rs.87,646/- and prayed for the punishment to the appellant under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 towards the civil liability.

3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was

filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court

framed the charge against him.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 05 witnesses, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence not examined any defence witness. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence/material available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and is confining his arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that appellant and CSEB arrived at compromise that appellant shall pay sum of Rs.51,300/- towards the civil liability instead of Rs.87,646/- under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Pursuant to which, appellant has paid sum of Rs.51,300/- on 09.05.2018 before the CSEB. Copy of deposit receipt is also placed on record. Appellant has already paid sum of Rs.3,000/- as imposed by the trial Court. There is no any previous antecedents of appellant in similar nature, alleged incident was of the year 2012, ie, more than 13 years have elapsed. Hence, it is prayed that sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court be converted into a sentence of fine only.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

9. Section 138 of the Electricity Act,