Sentencing should prioritize a reformative approach over a purely punitive one, taking into account the offender's socio-economic background, the duration of legal proceedings, and the potential for rehabilitation, especially for first-time offenders.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Both these appeals are being decided by a common order. However, for facility of reference, facts are extracted from CRA-S-1177-SB-2012 titled as Sehdev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

2. The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 17.11.2011 and the order of sentence dated 18.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months each.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that an application was submitted by the Junior Engineer, DHBVNL, Sub Division Mandkola, to the concerned police authorities stating that in the intervening night of 14/15.05.2010, unknown persons had removed and stolen the coils from a transformer installed in the revenue estate of village Sheoroli. On the basis of the said application, a formal complaint was lodged and FIR No.186 dated 23.05.2010 under Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 came to be registered at Police Station Hathin.

4. During investigation, the appellants were arrested, who suffered a disclosure statement. Pursuant thereto, certain coils were recovered and taken into possession vide seizure memo. The recovered articles were identified by the concerned Junior Engineer of DHBVNL. Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan, the appellants were charged under Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The entire evidence was put to appellants and statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. The appellants denied the same, however, didn’t lead any evidence in their defence.

6. On consideration of the evidence and hearing the arguments, the appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal and sentenced as noticed above.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submits that he does not press the present appeal on merits and confines his submissions only to the quantum of sentence. The following mitigating circumstances are pointed out by the counsel for the appellants:

(i) The occurrence pertains to the year 2010 and the appellants have faced the agony of protracted criminal proceedings for more than a decade and a half which in itself has had a considerable deterrent and punitive impact;

(ii) The appellants have already undergone more than 02 years of actual sentence during investigation and trial out of the awarded sentence of 03 years;

(iii) The appellants are poor labourers and the sole earning members of their families;

(iv) Appellant- Sehdev was 27 years at the time of occurrence whereas Appellant- Rohtash @ Kalua was 21 years;

(v) The appellants have not been involved in any other case of theft of electricity;

(vi) Accordingly, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone.

8. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the offence under Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act is a serious economic offence affecting public property and infrastructure. It is contended that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and awarded a sentence commensurate with the gravi