The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence for theft of electricity, discharged the petitioner from bail liability, and quashed proceedings due to improper initiation by a non-qualified officer and post-crime compensation.
Judgment of conviction, sentence and appellate judgment set aside; petitioner discharged from bail liability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.325 of 2009
Bhola Sharma
..… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Aanya, Advocate Miss. Surbhi Agarwal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Bishamvar Shastri, A.P.P.
05/18.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 09.07.2008 passed by learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2006, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and modifying the order of sentence dated 31.08.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 80 of 2001, corresponding to T.R. No. 130 of 2006, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence committed under Section 39 of the Electricity act and further simple imprisonment for one year for offence committed under Section 44 of the Electricity Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned appellate court modified the sentence as six months S.I. for offence committed under section 39 and six months S.I. for offence committed under Section 44 of the Electricity Act and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.02.2001, at about 12.30 hours, the informant Subedar Choudhary, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Noamundi along with Deputy Magistrate and other officials of Electricity Board conducted raid in the shop of accused Bhola Sharma (Petitioner herein) in village Noamundi and during raid it was found that the accused was committing theft of electricity by
-2-
putting P.V.C. wire with a hook on main L.T. line. It is further alleged that the valid connection in the name of the father of the accused stood disconnected on the day of the raid due to non payment of arrears of bills to the tune of Rs. 9321/-. Further allegation is that due to such theft the Electricity Board sustained a loss of Rs.10,000/- and during the raid P.V.C. measuring 50 feet was seized and accordingly seizure list was prepared. On this basis Noamundi P.S. Case No. 08/2001 was registered under Section 379 of the I.P.C. and Section 39 & 44 of the Electricity Act. 4. Ms. Aanya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective and has committed gross illegality in holding the petitioner guilty for the alleged offence. She further submits that even otherwise the law regarding compounding of the offences has been introduced by the legislature vide Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2003 vide Section 152 of the Amended Act and admittedly, the petitioner has compensated the loss of the Electricity Department and therefore, the appellate court should not have denied to extend the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal procedure to the petitioner.
She further submits that the Electricity Amendment Act, 2003 was very much applicable at the time of final decision of the appeal and, as such, the Appellate Court could have even allowed for compounding the offence.
She lastly contends that the Assistant Electrical Engineer, who was the informant in this case was not competent to initiate the proceedings under the penal provisions of the Electricity Act as he was not an Electrical Inspector within the meaning of the term in view of the legal bar imposed under Section 50 of the Electricity Act. Relying upon the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should have been given benefit of the provision of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C.
-3-
5. Learned A.P.P., though opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the conviction is not bad, however, he does not oppose that the benefit under the provision under Section 360 Cr.P.C. should have been given to the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the facts of the case and the admitted position that there was theft of electricity and Rs.19,321/- was the total loss incurred by the Electricity Board including the duty as well as penalty, which the petitioner has already paid.
Even on the legal ground, i.e. the initiation of proceeding was done by the Assistant Engineer who was not competent to do so as per Section 50 of the Electricity Act, since he was not an Inspector within the terms of the Act and admittedly no notification was produced by the prosecution to show that the informant-Assistant Engineer was allowed to act as an Electrical Inspector in terms of Section 50 of the Act; thus, on this ground also proceeding initiated by the informant is not maintainable.
Further, the loss which was caused to the Electricity Department has already been compensated by the petitioner, as such the trial court and appellate court have committed an error in ignoring these aspects of the case.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.08.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 80 of 2001 as well as the judgment of the appellate court dated 09.07.2008 passed by learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2006, are set aside.
8. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
-4-
9. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the courts below and also to the petitioner through the officer-incharge of concerned police station.
10. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhola Sharma
The State of Jharkhand
Deepak Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
