Dismissed¶38

Shiv Prasad Sahu v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jun 2025CRA/1335/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Electricity Act s.135 theft-of-electricity conviction upheld by Chhattisgarh HC (CRA No.1335 of 2016, decided 23.06.2025, Bibhu Datta Guru, J.). Ground of absence of independent witness during panchnama rejected because appellant's wife signed Ex.P-5 and inspection report Ex.P-6; fine Rs.94,485/-; claimed deposit Rs.1,10,000/- (Annexure A-1); assessed loss Rs.1,28,662/-; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The plea that no independent witness was present during the panchnama is not sustainable because the appellant's wife, Smt. Pawan Kumari, was present and put her signature on panchnama Ex.P-5, and also signed the spot inspection report Ex.P-6; the Electricity Company officials prepared the panchnama and spot inspection report after following the due process of law. ¶37

Shiv Prasad Sahu Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

CRA No.1335 of 2016

2025:CGHC:26960

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 1335 of 2016

¶7

AMARDEEP CHOUBEY

¶8

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.25 10:33:54 +0530

¶9

Shiv Prasad Sahu S/o Ram Charan Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Telaimuda, Sahupara, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Civil And Revenue District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellant (s)

¶11

versus

¶12

The State Of Chhattisgarh Station House Officer Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

For Appellant For Respondent/State

¶15

: Mr.Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

23.06.2025

¶19

This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2016, passed by the learned Special Judge (Under Electricity Act), Surajpur, District:Surajpur, C.G. Special Criminal Case No.5/2013, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted Under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 13 days(which the appellant has already undergone

¶20

¶21

from 30/11/2013 to 12/12/2013) and pay fine of Rs.94,485/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months.

¶22

Brief facts of the case is that on or before 15/06/2013, the appellant has committed theft of electricity by illegally hooking from the LT line and was running an electric motor of 10 HP haler floor and 3 HP water pump and in this way, he has caused loss of Rs.1,28,662/- to the Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited.

¶23

The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶24

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already undergone and completed the jail sentence and the only suspension which has been sought for is the depositing of fine amount of Rs.94,485/-. Learned counsel for the appellant further refers to Annexure A-1 showing that the appellant has deposited an amount fo Rs.1,10,000/- which the trial Court prima facie does not

¶26

¶27

appear to have considered. Learned counsel would submit that in the entire process of inspection by the electricity company, no independent witness was there. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

¶28

On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that there are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellant his guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment against the appellant which does not require for any interference.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶30

PW-2, T.K. Patel has stated that at the time of the incident he was working as Assistant Engineer in Electricity Department, Surajpur. On 15.06.2013 he went to the premises of the accused in village Telaimuda along with the investigation team. The inspection team found that the accused had made a connection by hooking 4 wires to the low pressure line for running the motor pump and 3 wires for the pump. In this regard, he had prepared Panchnama Ex.P-05, on which he has put his signature. One 10 HP motor and 4 wires of about 12 meters were seized from the spot, which has been mentioned in the Panchnama and he had assessed the illegal connection and given the bill Ex.P-07 to the accused/appellant, on

¶31

¶32

which his signature is there in parts A to A.

¶33

PW-3, Ashok Kumar has stated that he is posted as Assistant Lineman in Electricity Vigilance Department, Ambikapur. On 15.06.2013, he went to the premises of accused Shivprasad Sahu in village Telaimuda along with the investigation team. The accused was illegally running hauler, flour and oil mill and irrigation pump by hooking directly from the low pressure line. The electric motor and wire were seized from the spot by the investigation team vide Ex.P.08 and P-5, in which, he has put his signature on part B to B part.

¶34

PW-4, Bagarsai Paikara has stated that in the year 2013 he was posted as a Senior Security Guard in the Electricity Department at Namnakala Ambikapur and he was a part of the investigation team of the Electricity Department for inspection. On the date of the incident, he went to the premises of accused Shivprasad Sahu in village Telaimudha, where the accused was running a hauler flour and oil mill by hooking it to the electric pole and was running a motor pump for agriculture by hooking another one. The investigation team was taking action regarding the illegal supply being made by the accused, thereafter, the mill's motor and the wire were seized vide Ex.P-5 and he made in signature in the part 1 to 2 in the Panchnama. Similar is the statement of PW-6, R.S. Kshatri, Executive Engineer of the Electricity Company.

¶35

Upon bare perusal of the material available on record, it is quite vivid that while preparing the panchnama Ex.P-5, the wife of the appellant namely Smt. Pawan Kumari was very much present and

¶36

¶37

she herself put her signature on the said panchnama, therefore, the plea taken by the appellant that during the course of panchnama, no independent witness was present is not sustainable. It is also noteworthy to mention here that in the spot inspection report, Ex.P-6 also the wife of the appellant put her signature. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Officials of the Electricity Company has prepared the panchnama and the spot inspection report after following the due process of law. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court.

¶38

As a result, the Criminal appeal, sans merit , is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶39

SD/-

¶40

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶41

Gowri/ Amardeep

Shiv Prasad Sahu v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Prasad Sahu v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramnath Rajak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suyash Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mithun Kumar @ Prince Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nikhil Mourya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Avinash Pandey Vs Parthivi Construction Private Limited

Deepak Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh