Khilawan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Janjgir Champa (C.G.), in Criminal Electricity Case No.11/2006 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

¶17

2

¶18

Sentence

¶19

Conviction

¶20

U/s 135 (a) of RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in Electricity Act 2003 default thereof, 6 months additional RI.

¶21

As per the prosecution story, on December 6, 2005, at 1:45 PM, Prabhat Sharma, Junior Engineer of Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Tehri Malkharoda, along with his officials Ranjit Kujur and Nandkumar conducted an inspection of the power line in village Aadil. During the inspection, it was found that Appellant Khilawan Sahu, son of Thandaram Sahu, was illegally using electricity in his house in village Aadil. He had hooked a wire to the main power line and was operating a 10-horsepower motor, which was being used for setting up a huller mill. Thereafter, a site inspection was conducted, and a panchnama was prepared on the spot. From the scene, a 10-horsepower motor, starter, switchboard, wires, and other electrical equipment were seized, and a seizure memo was prepared. However, the seized items were handed over to the accused on deed of trust. A calculation sheet was prepared regarding the electricity theft, and a written report of the incident was filed at Malkharoda police station. Based on this report, crime was registered against the Appellant and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against him.

¶22

So as to hold the Appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. The statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, one defence witness was examined by him in his defence.

¶23

3

¶24

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2007, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that the appellant is an old aged person currently aged about 53 years, he has already remained in jail for about 3 days. The incident took place in December, 2005 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. The appeal is pending since 2007. Hence, it is prayed that by enhancing the fine amount, the sentence of the appellant of the above offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

¶28

Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Ranjeej Kujur (PW-3), Prabhat Kumar Sharma (PW-4) and Durakram Paikra (PW-1), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135(a) of Electricity Act.

¶29

As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in December, 2005 about 19 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of

¶30

4

¶31

the case and also considering that the appellant is aged about 53 years at present, he has already remained in jail for about 3 days and he is facing the lis since December 2005, in the interest of justice, in considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from R.I. for 2 years to the period already undergone by him i.e. 3 days for the offence punishable under Section 135(a) of Electricity Act 2003. However, the fine amount for the above offence is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- which shall be payable by the Appellant within a period of 60 days from today. Further, any amount of fine deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted in the amount of fine imposed on him today by this Court, ordered accordingly.

¶32

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶33

11.The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437A of the CrPC.

¶34

Let a certif i ed copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶35

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶36

Shubham

Khilawan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khilawan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Pali and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jhumarlal Jain Vs Savanvati

Kamlesh Verma Vs Ghansyam Verma

Dawan @ Bhursa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Khikram Sahu