IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 14 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8753 of 2025 SHIV PRASAD SONI Versus MADHYA PRADESH EAST ZONE ELECTRICITY Appearance:

Shri Falgun Yadav - Advocate for the appellant. Shri Kush Singh - Advocate for the respondent.

J U D G 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 dated 25.07.2025 passed by Special Judge, Electricity Act, District Rewa in SC ELE No.1419/2017, whereby the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has been convicted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I for 3 months and fine of Rs.16830/- and in default, to further undergo R.I. for 15 days.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that complainant's complaint briefly states that on 11.12.2015, Investigating Officer/Assistant Engineer Hemant Chaudhary, along with employees Ishwar Din Saket and Angira Prasad Tiwari, went to Raghunathganj village to conduct a surprise inspection for electricity theft. During the inspection, it was found that the accused's service connection, number 70-4-441922, had been permanently disconnected due to non-payment of the outstanding domestic electricity bill of Rs.39,636. The accused was found to be illegally using 1000 watts of domestic electricity by connecting to the Electricity Board's low-tension line. An on-the-spot energy loss assessment revealed that the accused's actions had caused significant financial loss to the respondent company. The assessment revealed that the accused's theft of electricity had caused a financial loss of Rs.43,994/- to the complainant company. Hemant Choudhary prepared an inspection panchnama (site map) on the spot in the presence of the accused. The accused refused to sign the inspection panchnama. The accused was given a copy of the documents. The accused was informed through a notice to deposit the amount of damages, but the accused did not deposit the amount for the energy damages, due to which a complaint was filed in the court to take cognizance.

3. The learned Special Judge has framed the charge against appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, which he denied and claimed for the trial.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined Ishwardeen Saket (PW-1) and Hemant Chaudhary (PW-2) and placed Ex.P/1 &P/2 the documents on record. The accused has examined one Rajendra Prasad Rajak (DW-1) in his defence.

5. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came to hold that the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is found to be proved against the accused and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence as mentioned above. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by accused/appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant has submitted that the accused/appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that no Katiya has been seized from the spot and no excuse of it has been explained by the complainant. Moreover, independent witnesses, Ajay Namdeo and Rohini Prasad have not been examined on behalf of the complainant for the reasons best known to it. Hemant Chaudhary (PW-2) has stated that three other persons were accompanying him but no name of such persons has been revealed by this witness. He admitted that he did not remember the colour of the wire. In these circumstances, relying upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of the Indore Bench of this Court in the case of Bapupuri Vs. Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. (2008) 11 MPCK0047 has submitted that the complainant has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Alternatively, he submits that the incident was of the year 2015. At the time of incident, the appellant was of 55 years