A court may convert a sentence of imprisonment to a fine in electricity theft cases considering the convict's socio-economic status, lack of criminal antecedents, and the significant time elapsed since the commission of the offense.

Judgment on Board

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 10.01.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (Electricity Act), Bilaspur, (CG) in Electricity Criminal Case No.231/2014, whereby appellant stands convicted as under :-

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 07.09.2013, the officer/employees of respondent/Company inspected the premises occupied by the appellant and found that appellant has consuming 570 watt electricity for running 3 H.P. floor mill by connecting electric wire without legal demand. The inspection/investigation team submitted his inspection report (panchnama) regarding the alleged illegal connection by the appellant. The respondent-company also claimed civil damages Rs.1,34,908/- and prayed for the punishment to the applicant under the Electricity Act. Based upon which, alleged offence has been registered against the appellant.

3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 06 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 the appellant is a farmer and sole earning member of his family, therefore, he prays 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. Though learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only to the conversion of the sentence into a fine, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record.

10. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for the aforementioned offence/crime.

11. As regards the conversion of the sentence into a fine, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the submission that ap