[2026:RJ-JD:5721]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 223/2026 Khayaliram S/o Shri Surjaram, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Nainasar, Tehsil- Sardarsahar, Dist.- Churu.(Sentence Of The Appellant Has Been Temporarily Being Suspended By The Leaned Special Judge, (Electricity Act Cases) (Sessions Judge) Churu Till

14-02-2026 Vide Its Order Dated 15-01-2026)

----Appellant Versus Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Churu ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kishor Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

02/02/2026

1. The instant appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Churu in Speical Case No.159/2024, whereby the learned judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act and sentenced him to undergo 1 years’ SI with a fine of Rs.3,72,057/-

and in default of payment to further undergo 3 month SI.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal appeal are that on 05.05.2024, the Engineer (Vigilance) Jodhpur Discom, Rajgarh, field a complaint at the police station, Electricity Theft Prevention Team, Churu, stating that on 26.02.2024, during an inspection conducted by the AEN (Electricity) Jodhpur Discom, Sadulpur, at the premises of appellant, he was found to be illegally drawing electricity and consuming it unlawfully by connecting an illegal black colored service line to the LT bushing of the single-phase transformer lcoated at the back of his premises. A VCR bearing No.6636/41 was prepared on the spot. On the basis of said complaint, a FIR No.58/2024 was registered at Police Station APT, Churu under Section 135 of Electricity Act and after investigation police filed charge-sheet under Section 135 of Electricity Act against the appellant and co-accused Raj kumar.

4. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the appellant for the above offence and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 4 witnesses and exhibited some documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent and two documents were adduced by him. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for the offence as aforesaid.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he will not assail conviction of the appellant and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of granting the benefit of probation to the appellant. The appellant is sole earner of the family and has been acquitted from charges under Section 411 & 413 of IPC. The appellant shall be reformed if he is given a chance. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the appellant may be given the benefit of probation.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for some time and that it was the first criminal case registered against the appellant.

7. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

8. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that :

(1) The appellant is not a habitual offender and there is nothing on record to showing his co