Lambodar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL

1

2026:CGHC:16785

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 495 of 2007

¶7

Lambodar S/o Shri Mohanlal Jaiswal, aged about 32 years, OccupationHaller Mill, R/o Village- Mohapali, Police Station and Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarangarh, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent/State

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate. For State : Mrs. Shubha Shrivastava, PL

¶13

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶14

Judgement on Board

¶15

13.04.2026

¶16

This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 19.06.2007 passed by learned Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Case No. 44/2007, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:-

¶17

Conviction	Sentence

¶18

2

¶19

Under Section 135	of R.I. for 01 year	with fine amount of
Electricity Act, 2003	Rs. 25,000/-, in	default of payment of
	fine, to undergo months	additional R.I. for 03

¶20

As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant is a resident of Village Mohapali, Tahsil and Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), where he has installed a huller mill and is engaged in that business. It is submitted that for the purpose of operating the huller mill, the appellant obtained an electricity connection bearing No. 90/1/18625 with a load of 10 horsepower. On 28.01.2006, when the vigilance team headed by G.P. Sonwani, Executive Engineer (Vigilance), visited the appellant’s premises for a surprise inspection, it was alleged that they found a magnet placed over the electric meter. On this basis, a case was registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for interfering with the proper recording of electricity consumption. A written report of the incident was submitted by the Executive Engineer to Police Station Sarangarh, upon which the offence was registered. During the investigation, the magnet was seized, statements of the witnesses were recorded and a spot map was prepared. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the chargesheet, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the alleged commission of an offence under Section Section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 379 of IPC. The appellant having abjured guilt, was subjected to trial.

¶21

3

¶22

To robe the appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 05 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has been recorded, in which he denied the incriminating charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶23

The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record thereby convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for the said offence without any cogent reason. The learned trial Court failed to consider that the prosecution did not prove that the appellant had interfered in any manner with the consumption of electricity. The learned trial Court further failed to consider that the alleged use of a magnet, as claimed by the complainant Electricity Board, was not proved, as neither the capacity nor the size of the magnet was specified or established by placing cogent evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶25

Alternatively, he submits if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the aforesaid section, as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, however, in the said section, the whole fine amounts as imposed by the trial Court has already been deposited by the appellant before the trial Court, the incident took place in the year 2006, the appellant is now aged more than 55 years, he has remained in jail

¶26

4

¶27

for about 08 days and he is facing the lis since 2007 i.e. for about more than 18 years and therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

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

¶30

It is evident from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 135 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 379 of IPC. Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment.

¶31

PW-1 G.P. Sonwani, Executive Engineer (Vigilance), Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, stated that on 28.01.2006, he went to inspect the huller mill of the accused, Lambodar. He was accompanied by Meter Inspector B.B. Mishra and an employee of the Gudeli Electricity Distribution Centre. During the inspection of the meter installed at the accused’s mill, he noticed a magnet placed on the meter and found that it was causing interference with the recording of electricity consumption, thereby preventing the correct measurement of electricity usage. Thereafter, he seized the magnet on the spot in the presence of two villagers as per seizure memo (Ex. P/1). He prepared the

¶32

5

¶33

inspection report (Ex. P/2) and forwarded the same to the superior officer for necessary proceedings as per Ex. P/3.

¶34

PW-4 Rameshwar Prasad and PW-5 Dinesh Kumar admitted their signatures on the seizure memo (Ex. P/1); however, they denied that any other proceedings were conducted in their presence. They were declared hostile by the prosecution, but they denied all the suggestions put to them by the prosecution.

¶35

PW-2 Ishwar Singh Kunwar, Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Sarangarh, stated that he lodged an F.I.R. against the accused based on the report submitted by PW-1 G.P. Sonwani. The F.I.R. is Ex. P/4 and the written complaint is Ex. P/5, on which he admitted his signatures on A to A part. He further stated that he calculated the loss of electricity vide Ex. P/6.

¶36

It is evident from the statements of PW-1 G.P. Sonwani and PW-2 Ishwar Singh Kunwar that both are public servants and employees of the Electricity Board, and they remained firm during their crossexaminations. PW-4 and PW-5 have also admitted their signatures on the seizure memo (Ex. P/1).

¶37

During the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused did not deny that he is the owner of the huller mill; he merely answered that he was not present at the huller mill at the time of the inspection.

¶38

From bare perusal of the record and from close scrutiny of all the witnesses, clearly establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court

¶39

6

¶40

did not commit any illegality or irregularity in the findings as recorded by learned trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. So, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed.

¶41

As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2006, the appellant is now aged more than 55 years, he has remained in jail for about 08 days he is facing the lis since 2007 i.e. for about more than 18 years, also considering this fact that in the said section, the whole fine amounts as imposed by the trial Court has already been deposited by the appellant before the trial Court and in this regard he filed a receipt and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is directed to deposit the penalty amount of Rs. 16,374/- in three installments as directed by learned trial Court within three months from today, in case it has not already been paid.

¶42

Ex consequenti , the appeal is partly allowed . Conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent.

¶43

The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other case.

¶44

However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned

¶45

7

¶46

which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶47

The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

JUDGE

AMIT PATEL

Lambodar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lambodar 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

Gulab Singh Vs Dr. Saransh Mittar

Setram Rathiya Vs Dhaneshwar Chouhan ( Died Through Lrs)

Hitendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyamlal Yadav Vs Akhilesh Sahu

Bhiyam Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harishankar Vs State of Chhattisgarh