IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI th ON THE 8 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 688 of 2009 BETWEEN:-

LAKHAN SINGH THAKUR S/O DEVI SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O VILL.GORA KHAS PS. KHARGAPUR, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY MS. SEEMA SAHU - ADVOCATE AS AMICUS CURIAE)

AND M.P. POORVA KHESTRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY TIKAMGARH, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI MANISH MUKHRAIYA - PANEL LAWYER)

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

J U D G E M E N T

By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Special Judge Electricity Act, Tikamgarh in Special Case No.282/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 135(1)(A) of Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months with fine of 34,152/-, and in default, to further undergo RI for three-months.

2. As none appeared on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Seema Sahu, Advocate, who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist the Court on behalf of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA the appellant as amicus curiae.

3. The brief facts in nutshell is that on 24.06.2006, when the officers of Electricity Company Ltd. were on inspection, he found appellant un- authorisedly using electricity in his house. The said connection was took directly from electricity supply, and thus found committing theft of electricity. On that, panchnama was prepared by the flying squad, and seized 30feet wire, bulb and other electric wire from the spot and assessment of Rs.11000/- was made against him, on his failure to deposit the aforesaid amount, a complaint was filed before the competent Court. The appellant was prosecuted by the trial Court and upon conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced as detailed above.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Alternatively, he submits that during the trial, the appellant was on bail and did not misused the liberty granted by the trial Court. It is submitted by learned counsel that the incident is of the year 2006 since then the appellant is facing mental agony. It is also submitted that at the time of offence, the appellant was of 58 years of age. The appellant is first offender. it is also submitted that the fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant (as mentioned in the appeal memo). There was no mens rea behind the incident, so a liberal view on the point of sentence be taken by the Court, and this appeal may be allowed and judgment of the trial Court be quashed.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the incident and the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant. He said that the Court is at liberty to consider the case on the point of sentence.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA

6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned trial Judge after considering the statements of the witnesses by judgment dated 19/3/2009 convicted the appellant under Section 135(1)(A) of Electricity Act and sentenced as stated herein above. The findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are based on due appreciation of evidence and do not require any interference. The judgment of conviction under Section 135(1)(A)

of Electricity Act is upheld.

8. However, looking to the facts that the incident took place in the year 2006 and appellant is facing mental agony since then. He did not misuse the liberty granted to him under the bail. The prosecution has not brought any past criminal antecedents of the appellant on record and there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 135(1)(A) of Ele