Dismissed

Assistant Engineer, C.S.E.B. v. Laxmi Kumar Chandra

Chhattisgarh HC5 Dec 2014ACQA/39/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 dismissed. The High Court held the acquittal was not perverse, noting the prosecution failed to prove the accused owned the premises, the disconnection date, or call independent witnesses as required by Section 100(4) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal of the respondent under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 confirmed; appeal dismissed.

Assistant Engineer, C.S.E.B. Vs Laxmi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR_TCjG4—sSRIMiNAL^^1 'APPFAIAPPEAL'Mn'39P^)nF'OF ^^^^ ' ^ df-

¶2

APPELLANT

¶3

-^ -€^' ^o £J.ctt:^ <^>^.^fr' v&^'

¶4

RESPONDENT : ACCUSED PERSON

¶5

Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.).

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Laxmi Kumar Chandra Son ofShri ^f'1'0 Daulatram Chandra,7 Resident of Village Jharpali, Police Station and Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.).

¶8

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 f4) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973 READ WITH SECTION 156 OF THE ELECTRICITi' ACT, 2003

¶9

HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR

¶10

ACOUITTAL APPEAL N0. 39 OF 2011

¶11

APPELLANT

¶12

(Complainant)

¶13

Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State^ Electricity BoarB' i

VERSUS

RESPONDENT (Accused)

Laxmi Kumar Chandra

Present: Mr. M.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate, for the Respondeht.

¶18

(Single ISINnSUIe MffAr^am Koshv, J.)

¶19

JUDGEMENT 5 -12-2014) (

¶20

(11 i]|The present AcqHii"roK,'|§;gi|^£^.,has been prefegrggR. tfy,: the Appellant against the :}&Hiaeji||jp)f acquittal dated 27,09.2007 i.l3U"!-fflM;"3Sfc!;i_^ •• • . . , _..: •_ :; : ;;1 passed' by the Special Ju'flgg§|t|Wg|iElectricity Act, 2003), Katgarh, in Special e'S-se-''1NTo.58/2Qj5J'J| 'whyeby the .Respondent h9.S ^been acquitted of the charge^KsSSSKSeeM.pn 135 of'the Electricity Act, ./!i!?UH';;'a"'~-J il •' • !1 / • " : • 2003. . . . ulK^W'i.-ur ..-1' . •

¶21

j2) Brtef facts giving rig@:-ifl8 '•WS filing of the instant1 Acquittal Appeal as per the coinplaint are that the Respondent had given an electricity connection, bearing No.71/51/32449, of 6410waft' at village Jharpali for domestic use and that on account of; rionpayment of outstanding electricity bills amounting to Rs.9,,910/-, the said electricity connection of the Respondent was. disconriected bythe Electricity Board on 6.3.2007. However,on 16.4.200^ on sudden inspection of the premises of the Respondent;:hythe Assistant ' Engineer, Electricity Board, . it was found' that the Respondent i had taken an electrieity . ^ ^ connection ^^ ^ illegally ^_ _ by ^ :.'_ directly hooking^'from the Low Tension Line of the Electricity Board installed -near his house and thereby he was using 5 bulbs of lOOwatt each, one cooler and one television in .his, house and thus :he, was committing the theft of electricity.: It was held that the Re'spon^ent

¶22

Ss&^iS^'^.

¶23

.2-

¶24

had put the Electricity Board to'a total loss of R&.il^2Q3%. (Rs.993/for damages, Rs.300/:; towards compensationij-^-i: Rs.9,910/- as dues). Thereafter, a complaint case (registigileet'ias 'Special • Case No.58/2007') was filesl before the SpecSialr'Ju.dge; (under'Electricity Act, 2003) against the Respondent forJhaving1 ctimmitted the offence under Section 135 of the E]ectriGitylAet,i ' 2003, and the matter was put to trial. .' li:

¶25

(3) During the course of trial, three witnesses i.e. PW-:1 A.L; Patel, Assistant Grade-II, PW-2 LakHanlal, Lineman and:PW-a R.: Dayasi, Assistant Engineer were examined by the prosecutipn1 in: •support of its qagSil^lg^^^^fi; ^|t^|^;gartmental'witnesgesi, Statement "sB.f !|t]'yriaccused Respon3d¥'iff.yya;||3'|E'ecorded ;'urider Sectiogi£B|ji3S?&- of CrPC in which he denied 1flM..,giii?cumstan;ces agjgBBpng against hijp»;;..:E]:£,;Ma,g,->,.pr;osecution c£[Sggi*'|j)leacled inifllCence and false irfl^:la|s|.ja(M:i@|^|iggi' ,'®'' •• •

¶26

(4) After completion afJtfH^fgEa^ the Court below, :i.e., the SpeciaJ Covs^^^efistitute&ffuSQSTsJ tbe Efectricity Act:, 'vide^its judgment of acquittal dat:e:Sf3Q.Qj3Q07 reached to the-eonclusion that the prosecution h|iis|Mt3l3ya£gn,gjB>le .te> pnJve its case.beyond reasonable doubt agains¥:EBp-s;Resp9ndent and, therefore;;givm.j ,a '•f^ywg'wsSt^ ' ! ^ .,111:. the benefit of doubt the Respondent:was acquitted of th'e c'Marge leveled against him. under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.' ^ ';:::: (5) .'It is this judgment of acquittal dated 27.9.2007 against which the instant Acquittal Appeat.has been preferrect !by ithe ' ' ; • Appellant/Electricity Board. ::' ':.:, (6) Learned Counsel forthe Appellant, Shri M.D. Sharma, has subinitted that in fact the Court'below has too teehnicailly.not accepting the case of Ae prosecutipn acquitted fhe Respond^ent. 1:; •ll ' : • ^. Learned Aounsel for the Appellanf further submttted that'it was the duty of the Respondent to proye the case of the dis:putficl premises not being his own or at least the Respondent cqutd have pyt sotne questions to the prosecutiQn witnesses in respect:Df t!he ownership and title of the premiseSiBeiQg that of the Respondenti

¶27

-J-

¶28

tt-..

¶29

Learned Counsel also 'submits that? the Court below';:KQs:';nei^: properly appreciafed the oral and documentary evidehce'MeIduce'ct' by fhe prosecution and has discar.died the adniissible;^'widenGel and, in the course, the Court belpw has decided ;;fK^i;B:'iat};eF contrary to law. It was also contende^ by the learned;©6uh:sel;'for theAppellant that the third provisQ^'fo Section 135 of.Electrieify Act, 2003 clearly gives a benefit of {iiresumption to be.m!ac[el:arid the Court below has totally ignored the said third proyiso : to Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 that unless tHe icontrary is proved it has to be presumed1 that the accu'sed/RGSRonclent' was dishonestly ugir^|g,t.8£B^Uici||||(|fJ.]:T.e Appellanf/Ele:e£ncity Board. So far4^'iyiiB.l(M^-SvaIlaBililvsW€»y's-'8'end,entwifnesSiesJ fo prove ,t|i^Sg^LSte of the prosecution is.concerneS'iylganaed Counsel for sit|J8y(ppellant submits rQSsS,. only because thA;im.ffg;|3en.Glent witassses have not .begn:£e5£gHSl'i(St:lgto prove its casei;|S3y;,'! itself: 'would npt vitiate the pif3ssS:?iatiicyia!|a,se'if the other prose'cutiori. witnesses have been .ablpslsg.pRqjye.iils case' by leading' prop'eievidence before"the CourtijUeloN", ftnd' that from their.evidence'if the'Respondenf' has nofe'!l^eerE|ail3le'"Ci8i, brihg out^{^any} .subst.ance.to the extent of creating aj^|Q,t;iM;|r:isQ|S''mind of'the Court: bringiirig out suQh facts so as t(£)fr:i6iBjSib®tBepetthe.entire versipnl::of;the prosecution withesses. For the above stated reasbns,ll'learned Counsel for the 'Appellant' submits that the instant; Acq'uj.tfal Appeal deserves to be allowed and by setting aside'tbe brder passed by the Court below, the Respondent be conyieteci.Jor tlae 'offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.;; ;:^ i, ;^ ?

¶30

In support of his contentions,:|C2;ounsel for the ARpeIlai'i'&'has relied upon the judgements reporledj in2001 Cr.L.J. :6® ;-2@09 Cr.L.J.4100; 2008 Cr.L.J. 4034; .2013 Cr.L.J. (NOC) •44ii;,2Q06 (2) Cr;Llj. 1121; AIR 2002 SC 1621:arid2006 (10) SCC16?17; ^.; (7) Per contra, Shri Bharat Rajput, learned Coynsgl'for.ffie T?esponcfent, opposing the submissiQhs put fbrth by the :leat'nEd' Counsel 'for the Appellant, has vehemently argued,;that'a,]3lain ;pepusal of'the finding arrived at .^>y,(he Court below;.itself.woul:d ' • ll'"^1;;-.1!. .

1 :B'•BS

-4-

reveal that the entire prosecution'case is done in a"!half,l'ieartet{ manner and no efforts have beeri'.made by the pTose^t.ttwW^fBi, prove the case beyond; al] reasonablejdoubt. Learned Ooyia&el^fe:)^ the Respondent also submitted that^eyen if we peruse fHe'TecprGls to assess the manner in which the mvestigation was conductediit would reflect that the prosecution has not made ;any. serious efforts for proving the charge levelled against the Responden't in a manner as is required under the pro.visions of law. According'to the^Counsel for the Respondent,-apparently no .witness ofthe riear vicinity was called upon at thetime of the surprised eheek being conducted ]3^^^^()^(^j Q^^y^.glectricity Board, whioh. gives rise tge.^^^^'yftfblinFof^dMSO^j^e jacosecution story,' Learne|^'®|j$'iselfor the Respondent has fur1SaAg?'g|a]sm,itted .tbat the'l^|Se!rship of the Res@qnete:fiit,,has not been prtBs?MgiCoynsel foil&llhe Respondent yastPyfiB;®B%N}oinitted ^yis'Kiiys'Ks'v-i^ ''^ ^ that ^ ^^ thegigcope: " 'i.'.-:.i: .^^' ,oT •• interfering in an Acquitt§;}Sj|S)Sip%its|very limited and that it hais to " ; be proyed on ^^•—•^^ bebalf of'ffilla&osKBgjtairrant . • . ^| ^-^tIU^'i -•.^ • beyond .. all . .• reasonable '.' ••..". ,:,.:. •: doubts in respecfc of comi!nas^i;iafa!|of,the offence by the acoused and that even ifthere igf^sBglaKsS M.dqubt in Eespect'OftlT.ecase having been proved orliil|ijQ|j:gE;.:E:!gi||fit would. always gp in.favour of the accused. Learneda6|igi:pEiissfa||3F: the 'Respondenf, therefQre; prayed that the'instant Appeal bejng devqid of merits is^Ii^bl^.to be rejected. .^ 1;:.. ,,.'''. (8) Considering the contentions'.put forth by the^learned Counsels appearing for either side and on perusal'IQf.the materials available on record,'if we^.see the finding Eu'rivedi'at,;by the Court below, the Court below'after taking into consideEation the evidences thatha.ve been lead :o"n behaTf of the prpseeu-ti'on, held'that the< prosecution has faiied' . to p^ove its cas&lgeyQn.d' ;." '^ reasonable doubt and that there are irhany lacunas Qri tKe:paTfcof the prosecution in establishingjits case inasmueh! asS!the prosecution has failed.to prove that the inspected house wtiere it is alleged thaf the Respondent'fafid.; committed the'ffieft c)f electricity was in faot the belQngGd ^to the Responden't:. !i"The

•vu

-5-

prosecution has also.failed to esta-Blish by producffigla'ievefjMe ^records .to.ascertain ;the fact that^the said prena,ises;,:ffl^fBg~fc; •belonged to the Respondent. In offleF'words, the owneFstrijalo^ffie house where the alleged theft of'^e|ectricity was coriai-njitited wgJS not established before the Courl;', below. Accorcting'to |tlfie statement given by PW-3 R. Dayasi,::Assistant Engineer ^iis 'Mis: cross-examination, the'consumer iri/whose name the. conn'eGtion was given was the father of the Respondent, namely, Daulat Rani \ 'Chandra and not the Respondent, Laxmi Kumar Chandra. :lri e electricity disconnection list (Ex.P-4);,lt.he name of the RespQndent is not mentioned tliyg. S,l]B|iUhriga:grasecution witnesses hav& .admitted t]3.a,CT|ji^^lBisflE)MtIaT Rarrt8f®MW|^Jha^expired^and -t.hat .they'h^ii/^llgAknowledge about the .legal heir»gf';||E||leg;saicl::T3autat 'Rai-EfejlISilihdra. The fact thapW-ie said Daulat Rarn'MMSidra./'bcis eS|M|ted has not been;,|,i|i|Fif||>y^|Vp, the Panchnama..Bp3x;P^l:),. Sitaiilarly,. the prosecutiQ|»||£|g;;'jffl,K^\t.oestablish the factifhat^fitS to.who had disconnectecytlia.iaSlliey^electricity connecfion: o.f.the Respondent.'No persori reffic{!(MKaid to have' disconnecteGl- 'the alleged electricity cogdffS;tj:Sri'^''<;|ff'tAhe Respondent has . been examined by the proseS|.g@in{3:ig.|3g|ge the disconnection^part...iln additiop, in the entire •eag^pljptfe&jprosecution, there:,wa.s,;;nQ iridependentwitness to support the Case of the proselcution,whic:t:l also is a procedure .contrary to fee.provisions of law ian;d that everi the inspecting team had not called for any ofth&neighboujrs residing in the vicinity of the respondent, as is requireAun.dei: Section 100 (4) of CrPC. Thus, 'the'case of the prosecutipn::; in respect of committing the offence-!of theft of elecfricitx^'by'it^.e Respondenf is not established orproved. (.;"'/'.„,,,

¶39

(9) Pprj ' the foregoing reasons a.nd^the1;' 1!'^ evidences. . . ' wMibb;RaYe' :':'1, :1 :! corrre bn record, it can be safely.'concluded that: therei is'no perversity ^ " in ' the judgment ' ' : of • the ':.,•'• Cavtff. :":•'below . . as it • cannof' . :, " ''• ;:! •.:":''-. be.said .-, • '••: "; - that thejudgment is not based ori;tHe evidence or the^®yi.(|sttce'ori record has not been properly dRp^ciated by the Coa'Ef'lbyKw which may warrant interference b^this^Court.1

¶40

^n^l

¶41

-6-

¶42

'(10) Jn the instant case, learned'CQianselfbr the;A.pj:)e|tIant''KEts relied upon the matter'of State GoW.yfNCTofDelhi'Vs^SunS'Sr'iS Another [2001 Cr.L.J. !504]. Relymgi.upon Para-19-of:1tKe: said judgement, learned CoUnsel for the-'Appellant submitted; ffiattthe requirement of calling upon independent and,reliedl;.:upoln witnesses to lead evidence to proveithe case of thelprt)secuti6n would not be necessary, particularly, when the proceedings^haye been drawn uiider the provisions of tKe Electrieity Act, 2003. But, the 'same would had Been required if it is a case where certain specific seizure tq l3^c^nQfj.:||n (ty^.accused person th®nthe presence oiyiB:^t3g!^McffiTif'"Waftr 8^(^ii|ls|r h|),d been.'relevant. Similaijy]g|g||Fned Counsel fbr the Appellant ^^giqiljlyid upo'n :the deci||^ii!,'ii'endered by Punjab!:%Br(l Haryana High CaS/ifjasyort.isd.tn. SQy-'Cr.L.J. 4100 titlea$as&£^|®yerPal & Ors.ys.aSfate .of Pun/&fc",...wherein- the QJiilayejl'^JdBlthe ' ~ ^ Appellant ' stressed/.upp.n l.''; llil :1:1'".:' .yws'&W!*w Para-17, so far as the seaffiSfls^aSiS^sizure '' is ! concerned. ' ,, '.' '.'::'1;" J. -^-f~r ^^••-f ./—-^ . ' Ua'N'fl'l'Vs'-'^ j^ ^J '[^ '^-:: ^^ '. '. • • .'•'•.-.''•• •'. :!: 1';1

¶43

, However, 1Ae said' con|erii2n3Bt.oi''thelearned'C(a.lnseilfbr:tI'ie Appellant cannot be aqeBleitgS'fO^itHttre.asoh that/a pla.in p'eFti'sgd of the provisions sub-s@(|t|^i|g'^gj0®i!'Section 100 of CrPG 'Klewty envisageg the fact thlata'tS8<:'pi'K^isions of requirgrrLent'jlofl^an independent witness is for both thednstances, i.e., lfor.se£u-cb:as well as for seizure. Ifwe read the'entire Section, i.e., Sectioi^ -1QQ of CrPC and the said sub-section'enumerated therein'it;'wouid clearly show that the intention .of 'the legislators'requiring-an, independent witness was'to show that whatever aetion' Kas been taken by the teain conducting seaifeh and seizure'act:,.jn.an unbiased manner and are arbitrary.or have made out a false complaint^ only on papers so as to irryolicate a "•.personf.' ! :Tbe!'1:'', f ; :": ' ' persons of an independent and^respecfable inhahitant of;the io'cality would prove the fact of search as well as the findings made in the course of the search.,Hence, the said:judgeme;nts would also not come to the aid of the:Appellant.

'•1 '.

-7<

(11)- Learned Counsel/for the Appellant has further.FeHsel'upipn the decision rendered by Gujrat::,High Caurt^'ui p©6^a i}Sj3, Chandubhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat" reported iri ®©Q8:'CnK.J^ 4034, wherein the Counsel for th^Appellant relied up:on!:airF'ar|i:L11 of the said judgement and relying. upon the said juGlgginent, learned Counsel for the Appellanf'fried to emphasize.fKetfact.that there was no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the eviderice lead'by the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the officers of the Electricity Board and, therefore, the judgeraent of acquittal : ;ranted by the Court below deserves-tp be set aslde. However, in^ttlC>gn|B|^jI |^e^B;S^dd^judgeinentlcaiinot,;be made apglliaplAi^kiS'tRSreason that:SW8J3Uiig.a»fcthe Court'belbw was'aA,fiUj8 the witnesses on behalf'of the prBsffcgUgn1 were,,niot rgj4.S> l>ut the finding of-j;]a6;,G)!3y)^tW:as that the depQ,s@fei,n;'of:tla:e prSgfccuticu-i witness w!^jlKtJ6H[S^&toy the Court on ^aBcQyntisf variqus contradictions! fh|gffi:5%!a§3l|Rere amongst the evichsaces :^pf the prosecution witnesse's']B|l,eTll'|:E.;benefit of which giyen :fo:fhe accused perse'n. As sucK^!||"i&.;lsald'3udgenient'GarLnotbe';rti.acle applicable to the facts eiffiifttiffga'tStarctjlease.

¶48

(12) Similarly, learned @8ttBiS8;t'iSi8(Pllhe Appellant in additiQn;}ias also relied upon the : following Judgements with fegard :'fo;;'tihe ' 1 disbelieving of the prosecution witnesses:-' . , i' , • ;' ['i

¶49

2013 Cr.L.J. (NOC)^ 441 (KAR.) - Ningappa.Parmarifia Curikar Vs. State. :'^ , ;!: i: ' .!l

¶50

• 2006 (2) Cr.L.J. 1121- Radha.Mohan Singh Vs. State ofU.P, • AIR 2002 SC 1621—Bhagwan'Singh& Ors Vs. State ofW.R; • 2Q06 (10) SGC 617 (Para-5).'-'y,N. Ratheesh'Vs.;,Sfateiof Kerala. \ : • •: •; . . <(*• • . • •

¶51

These judgements have been cited by the learnecl,Counsel

¶52

for tl-^e,-Appellant to show the :po,w^rs of the High;,Coyrt,to interfere in a judgement of acquittal in the event if fhe findin; arrived at by the CQurt below is'peryerse, contrary to eyidence. However, if we peruse the finding of the Court below it would clearly show that the Court below :in fact has considered ;the 6vidences which have come before::tMe:5Court below verv^minutelv

¶53

-8-

¶54

and has reached to a conclusion.on^fihe ba,sis oftKe.^sisssn'isU; made. Thus, it cannof be said thaf'.the findings are;baselesg^,i)i? are contrary to fhe evidence on reeorS. As such, the:judgeingi3!ts cited by the Counseli ;for the AppSllant would not.::b'el:l:Gif ^any assistance to the Appellant in the fact.s of the present case.

¶55

(13) It is settled position of law th'at in an appeal ::agaihlst'an order of acquittal only in exceptional cases where there ^ are coinpelling circumstances and the judgment under-appeal; is found to be perverse can the Appellate Court interfere.with ,tKe order of acquittal. Reeently, Hon'ble^the Supreme Gouri;';|in 'the case ofPhulaSm^tg^.Sta^paH^flI^jPradesh, A]R1120I4,:S:G1 1256, in: BSJ-aaH.^'IWt£K' in very categorTi'Salf|tfer|S|sheld tHat:- '" .e; llSyffeilrt 'should bear in m.ind the presumpSyusof. innocen.ee offffWtcused and furt1'ysf^,lv:S,'^b^;tncd Court's acqff.iSSfiitootsters thettpresumption of.his'vn.jififffmSisfffyfference in a routirS m.anner -uihere-the'other vietii^isff3!Ssiffeff^yi{:!Uld be avoided,'un.less,there ' • aregood^re'asori.sfbrinterjMtjeMseyjy:./: , ;, .,_ •

¶56

,,.

¶57

(14) Once thef-e is an: onigR..:o£..a;GgMittal in favour ofthe alleged accused person, the salBr!'e!i's:!:I0il-l!(:i'liTOOt be.interfered.wifl'rveTy lightly unless there is SS;-fSfsSS{&ci:e strong case with. cbgerlit, sufficiAtt and substajitial proolf;i,iil-~favour of the:'proseeufion brougHt before the Court below; :'and which has: riot: bee.ii considered or has been overlooked^by':the Court below,'.orily then can the order of acquittal haveascopeofinterferenee,' :'•••.;•'• The IBT.V in this regard is by:'niyw? well settled.in :a'seriesof judgement of the Hon'ble Supreri-ie Gourt wherein, tHe Supreme Court has in very eategorical terms.i'h.eld that wheneyei,..-there:'is an order of acquittal, the higher Goyrtg'not to upset th;e yoldTng withou^ there being very convincirig.::re&sons and coinprel-iensiye considerations. ! ,:. ' :-':;. ": :':'

¶58

That while reappreciating arid'reconsidering the evidence upoh which the order of acquittal is based, certain ofher ' principles pertaining to other facets"are to be borheihrnind.

¶59

•-9-

¶60

An appellate Court, howewe:c;.'';raust bear irt^-.EniHdiffiat'Ui^ case of acquittal, there is doubl&'prGsumption jn^!:{a'srbua^:ofi,®e accused. Firstly, the presumption.oi'iEinocence is:(avsalSW:e^:tmsa. under the fundamental principle o'f[:criminal jurisRriJiclsnee;;^hdf every person shall be presumed 'to^be innocent untess/Kis^is proved guilty by a coTnpetent court oflaw. Secondly, the::ac<:u|sed having secured his acquittal, the pFesumption ofhis innQGenGe is further reinforced, reai'firmed and:strengthened by the fnal ' Court. - ;:

¶61

If.two reasonable conclusions :are po'ssible-' on'the, b'asis; pf the evidence on recQad.ltlJBkdtiB'elKoBC.ourt should1 not disturb the^finding..^Ji'3|iitt^cJH8¥fflrecorde6'1^<£||)^haJ5,Cour^^ The High Court^ as UgS'- required to see that-unless thSgefqsOs.^uiostaritial anc6|3M&ripelling circumstangtS,,, :t)5e order of acB[jd||j|i is.not ' "si,s!!''""'^^,. re6|||redtobereversedtiir|;|i|;|]|!s|i|is|^3, : "•^tfixi:SifvM6v3': ^ '!,.: : ' l'':' ' It js trite here to r^fag''?i6|&lKw.t'ecisions in this regarcl^b^ '.. the.Hon'ble SupremeCo'dKSsS^lIl!*: ,: :.^ 1

¶62

• . 2007 (4J-SCC 4.15 - ft^mMapps. v. State of Karnataka. • 2012 (1) SCC 602 ^Siiiat;eM®iya.sthanv. Shera Ram; • 2013 (5) SCC 70^}-'(SBfiffa|Mj£tra|appa v..State ofKarnataka.' • AIR 2009 SC 1542<|E|^tg8i|<'6tateof~Punjabv.S:ukhehaAR' Singh SE Anr. ss^sri'-s r;r?!A.'. ' :1.::: -::...: -• • 2dl2 (6) SCC 589 (Para^27y'.3"R6htash v. State'OfHaiyana."''

¶63

(15) Thus, for the fpregoing reasons, this Court ils: of the considered view that the finding ^arrived at by the CQiart'ibelow is purely in accordance.with law and the Court.belowlhs'shot commifted any error of lavv in reaching to the said cohclusion1 pf acquitting the Respondent of fhe :charge leveled agajnst him under Section 135 of the Electricity.Act, 2003. • !': l'». :

¶64

(16) The Appeal thus fails and Jis.accordingly dism.isse'd, bCiing totally devoidofmerits'.^ r ,: . . ! : ' - ,; '^" -~—^—^_•

¶65

•/sky/

¶66

P. Sam Koshy Judge

Assistant Engineer, C.S.E.B. v. Laxmi Kumar Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assistant Engineer, C.S.E.B. v. Laxmi Kumar Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aghanu and Ors. Vs Putru and Ors.

Saheshwar @ Chintu Rajwade Vs Sahjida Khatun

Kumari Shreya Bose and Ors. Vs Dr.S.K.Lal and Ors.

Ashok @ Mirchi Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ganga Ram and Others

M/s Alfa Agrotech Private Limited Vs Registrar Of Companies Bilaspur