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. 861 of 2013 M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO..LTD.

Versus JALAM SING Appearance:

Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal - Advocate with Shri Atul Khare - Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

JUDGMENT 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 21.11.2012 passed in Special Case No.40/2008 by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Pawai, District Panna (M.P.) whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has been acquitted of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on inspection of the house of the accused situated at village Umri at about 09:30 AM on 19.07.2007 by the appellant/company, Simaria, the accused was found to be illegally and dishonestly consuming electricity without the permission of the complainant company and causing financial loss of Rs. 50.466,/-. A panchnama (Ex.P/1), a property seizure report (Ex.P/2), and a map of the site (Ex.P/3) were prepared in the presence of witnesses. The accused refused to sign these reports. The complainant company suffered financial losses as a result of the above electricity theft committed by the accused. Final determination order dated 19.07.2007 was sent to accused through registered post, which he refused to accept the same. 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, Pawai, District Panna, which has been registered as Special Case No.40/08.

3. The learned Special Judge has framed the charge against accused for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which he denied and claimed for the trial. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he has pleaded false implication.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined retired Helper Sher Mohammad (PW-1); retired Assistant Lineman Ram Prasanna (PW-2); Jr. Engineer Mahendra Kumar Shukla (PW-3); and Jr. Engineer Sanjay Kumar Jain (PW-4) and placed Ex.P/1, Ex.P/2 & Ex.P/3 the documents on record. The accused has not examined any witness in his defence.

5. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies of witnesses and examined the documentary evidence available on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually acquitted the accused respondent of the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Hence, this appeal.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present appellant that the learned Trial Court on three grounds, firstly, the complainant was not authorized to file complaint before the Special Court; secondly, on the ground that no independent witnesses have been produced by the complainant in support of its case; thirdly, on the ground that no case property has been submitted during the trial, has acquitted the respondent. Such acquittal is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The complainant has produced four witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 and they categorically stated the entire incident of causing electricity theft by respondent, in respect of which the document including Panchnama memo (Ex.P/1), seizure memo (Ex.P/2) and spot map (Ex.P/3) has been prepared. These documents have been amply substantiated by the evidence of these four witnesses. They established the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the acquittal by the learned Trial Court is to be set aside and respondent be convicted for the offence and appropriately be sentenced.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

8. The learned Trial Court has discussed in detail various circulars issued by the State Government and State Electricity Board in respect of powers of Ju