IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2774 of 2016

M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.

Versus

RAMKISHAN SAHU

Appearance:

Shri Atul Khare - Advocate for appellant/company.

None for respondent.

ORDER did not come forward for deposit the amount with the appellant/company, hence, a complaint for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has been filed against the respondent/accused before the learned Special Court, Tikamgarh, which has been registered as Special Complaint Case No.1469/10.

This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the

complainant/company assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.04.2016 passed in Special Complaint Case No.1469/10 by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Tikamgarh, District Tikamgarh (M.P.) whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 135(1)

(a) of the Electricity Act.

2. As per the story of prosecution, on 09.07.2007 at about 04:45 p.m., a team of appellant's company has inspected the premises of the respondent/accused and they found that the respondent was consuming electricity directly connecting the wire with L.T. service line by passing the meter and committed theft of electricity. On such circumstances, a panchnama Ex.P/1 was prepared and vide order dated 13.07.2007, final determination order has been prepared and the respondent/accused has been directed to deposit Rs.28,872/- within a period of seven days, but the accused

3. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Charge was framed against the accused. The accused/respondent abjured his guilt. He pleaded complete innocence and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to bring home charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 02 witnesses, namely, Devkinandan Joshi (PW-1) and Narendra Kumar Singh (PW-2) and placed Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/2 the document on record.

5. Learned trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties acquitted the respondent/accused, hence, this appeal.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/complainant (company) that the learned trial Court has erroneously acquitted the respondent/accused while there was ample evidence in the forma of statement of the witnesses viz. Devkinandan Joshi (PW-1) and Narendra Kumar Singh (PW-2). They have categorically stated about the fact that even after disconnection of electricity connection in the name of respondent/accused, he was using electricity by connecting wire illegally, thereby, committed theft of electricity. On the spot, a memorandum Ex.P/1 was prepared and thereafter, civil liability has been assessed which contained in Ex.P/2, therefore, there is strong case in favour of appellant/complainant, but the learned trial Court has erroneously acquitted the respondent/accused.

It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and by allowing the appeal the respondent/accused be convicted and punished appropriately for the aforesaid offence.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and perusing the record meticulously, it is found that the witnesses examined on behalf of appellant/complainant have stated in their statements that on 09.07.2007, when they reached at the house of respondent/accused Ramkishan, they found that he was committing a theft of electricity by connecting wire with L.T. line while his electricity connection was temporarily disconnected. In this regard a panchnama Ex.P/1 was prepared on spot.

8. Devkinandan (PW-1) has categorically admitted in his cross- examination that he do not know the respondent/accused previously. It is revealed from the statement of this witness that the respondent/accused has not been identified by this witness during his examination, therefore, the identity of the respondent/accused rendered doubtful. Moreover, neither any electric wire nor any bulb which were alleged to have been used