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

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7779 of 2018 ONKAR PRASAD SHUKLA Versus EAST ZONE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD.

Appearance:

Shri Anil Kumar Mishra - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Kush Singh - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused/appellant assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.2018 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.500032/2014 by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Devsar, District Singrauli (M.P.) whereby the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') has been sentenced under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to suffer punishment till adjournment of the Court and fine of Rs.75,000/-, with default stipulation.

2. On January 21, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Mr. I.P. Mishra, Executive Engineer (Vigilance), along with his colleagues inspected the LT line in village Sahuaar and while inspection, he found that the accused, Omkar Prasad Shukla, was illegally consuming 2194 watts of electricity for domestic purposes by directly connecting two wires to the power line, thus committing electricity theft. The accused was present at the spot during the inspection. A panchnama (witness statement) was prepared in the presence of the accused, but he refused to sign it. A copy of the panchnama was provided to the accused, and copies of the relevant documents were also sent to him from the office. The accused has stolen electricity worth a total of Rs.21,495/-, which he has not deposited with the electricity department. Therefore, it is requested that the accused be punished under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

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 charge, the prosecution examined Rameshwar Singh Baghel (PW-1); I.P. Mishra (PW-2); Dadan Prasad (PW- 3); and Gaurishankar Gupta (PW-4) and placed Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5 the documents on record whereas in defence, the accused has examined Omkarnath Shukla (DW-1) and Badrinarayan Singh (DW-2) in his defence and placed Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2 the documents on record.

5. The learned trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies of the witnesses and examined the documentary evidence available on record found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and as such convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the accused is not the resident of village Sahuaar. He is the resident of Village Charki, Post Chatniya, P.S. Jiyawan, District Singrauli. In this regard, he has submitted his Aadhar card, Voter I.D. Card and other documents and to establish the said fact, he has examined himself as (DW-1) and Badrinarayan (DW-2). In light of the statements of these defence witnesses as well as the documents, it is categorically established that the accused is not the resident of village Sahuaar and the house searched by the team of electricity company was not under the ownership or possession of the accused. It is also submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution/complainant are the departmental witnesses. They are the interested witnesses. No independent witness is called and produced before the learned trial Court. It is also submitted that the departmental witnesses of the complainant i.e. Gaurishankar (PW-4) has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the accused/ Omkar Prasad Shukla who remained present before the learned trial Court at the time of examination of this witness was not known as the person whose house has been searched on the date of inspect