2026:CGHC:12910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 435 of 2017 Romnath Verma S/o Shri Latel Verma, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Guma, Danteshwari Chowk, Distribution Center Balodabazar, Police Station Balodabazar, District Balodabazaar, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Sub - Division, Balodabazaar, District Balodabazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judgment on Board

18/03/2026

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 28/02/2017 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. in Special Criminal (Electricity) Case No.185/2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Digitally ASHUTOSHsigned by MISHRA ASHUTOSH MISHRA Conviction Sentence Under Section 135 (A) of R.I. for 01 Year and fine of Electricity Act, 2003 Rs.2,95,536/- and in default of payment of fine 03 months additional R.I.

2. In brief, the complaint of the complainant is that on 19-03-2013, Assistant Engineer B.P. Deepak posted in Chhattisgarh Government Secondary School, Balodabazar, along with his subordinate employees, line man Shankarlal Nayak and Hemendra Kumar Banjare, went to village Guma to check electricity theft. During the checking, while inspecting the house of Romnath Verma, he found that service connection number 1001322501/72-017915709 was being used. Then he prepared the site inspection report Exhibit P.2 and its panchnama Exhibit P/1 was made. In respect of the said electricity theft, a proposed bill Exhibit P/3 amounting to Rs. 98512/- (Rupees ninety eight thousand five hundred twelve) was prepared and on being authorized by the Executive Engineer to file a complaint regarding the said electricity theft, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 135 (a) of the Electricity Act 2003.

3. After reading the crime statement prepared against the accused upon being explained and heard, he denied having committed the crime and expressed his desire for trial. During the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he answered almost all the questions with the answer of 'I don't know' or 'wrong'. He offered to give his defence and got a witness examined and gave his evidence. In his defense, he stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated.

The electricity department illegally demanded money from his wife in his absence, and when she refused, a false case was filed against him.

4. In this case, in support of the side of the complainant, the witnesses operator Hemendra Kumar Banjare (PW 1), lineman Shankarlal Nayak (PW 2), assistant engineer B.P. Deepak (PW 3) and on behalf of the defence, witness Chulendra Kumar Verma (DW 1) have been examined.

5. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and confining the arguments to the quantum of sentence only. He would next contend that the sentence awarded to the appellant is R.I. for 01 Year and the appellant was on bail during trial and he was granted bail by this Court on 22/03/2017 and presently also he is on bail. He would next contend that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of one day upon non- deposit of the fine amount, the appellant was taken into judicial custody by order dated 30.03.2017 for undergoing the default sentence. However, on the very next day i.e. 31.03.2017, the appellant deposited the entire remaining fine amount and complied with the directions of the Court, pursuant to which he was released. He would next contend that the appellant has deposited the entir