Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act for theft. High Court affirmed lower court's order finding apex evidence supported addition of appellant as owner and malpractices in connecting wires.
Appeal against conviction and fine of Rs 1,12,500 dismissed.
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.
[2023:RJ-JP:15891]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1349/2023
Yogendra Singh Puniya S/o Mungaram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Puniya Ki Dhani, Tan Sonthli Police Station Gudha Gourji District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)
(Presently On Provisional Bail For A Period Of 30 Days From The Date Of The Impugned Judgement Dated 29.04.2023)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hem Singh Gurjar and Mr. Kuldeep Bhatia for Mr. K.N. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahala, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Judgment / Order
RESERVED ON 06/07/2023 PRONOUNCED ON 12/07/2023
This appeal is preferred aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.2023 in Criminal Case No.94/2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Electricity Act (Additional Sessions Judge, No.1) Jhunjhunu whereby appellant was convicted for charge under Section 135 Electricity Act and sentenced to fine of ₹1,12,500/-.
The fact of the matter is on the basis of Ex.P15 report of PW1 Ram Pratap FIR No.79/2022 (Ex.P16) was registered on 14.07.2022 on the ground that during inspection of premises of appellant situated in Puniya Ki Dhani Tan Sonthli on 07.04.2022 at 5:15 PM, it was found that he was committing electricity theft
[2023:RJ-JP:15891]
[CRLAS-1349/2023]
(2 of 4)
after disconnecting meter and directly connecting with electricity line and VCR No.13816 (Ex.P1) was prepared on the spot. Further upon investigation a charge-sheet was filed and trial was conducted by learned Special Judge. During trial, 7 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were exhibited by the prosecution. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he opted not to file any defence evidence. After arguments the judgment of conviction was passed against appellant. Hence, this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that nowhere it was proved that the premises, wherein search was conducted belongs to present appellant. He further submitted that in Ex.P19 it was mentioned that the premises belong to Shishram Kharinta but due to animosity appellant was implicated as an accused. He submitted that FIR was registered after a long delay and without any explanation of delay charge-sheet was filed against appellant. He further referred the discrepancies in the statements of witnesses to submit that learned trial court has ignored discrepancies and material contradictions. At last he submitted that the judgment of learned trial court was perverse and not based on settled principle of law.
Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
On 07.04.2022 a VCR was prepared by PW1 which was corroborated by PW2 Vijay Kumar, PW3 Naresh Kumar, PW5 Sumit Kumar. The evidence of PW1 Ram Pratap, PW2 Vijay, PW3 Naresh
[2023:RJ-JP:15891]
[CRLAS-1349/2023]
(3 of 4)
Kumar and PW5 clearly indicated that on 07.04.2022 collectively they have searched a premises wherein by disconnecting service line cable, direct electricity supply is being used through an illegally attached cable wire in house/premises. In Ex.P1 itself it was mentioned that after penalties were not deposited then only FIR be lodged. After this notice and assessment-sheet as exhibited as Ex.P14 and P17 were prepared. Notice Ex.P14 was issued in the name of appellant and certain photographs were also exhibited during prosecution evidence captured during search process.
In statement of PW1, appellant was named as the person who committed theft of electricity and during cross-examination he admitted that appellant was not present on spot. Similar were admissions of PW2 Vijay Kumar, PW3 and PW5, wherein they admitted that they were not aware about presence of appellant. In the entire deposition of these four witnesses it was proved that electricity theft was discovered and on spot a VCR Ex.P1 was prepared, and in Ex.P1 the name of appellant was mentioned.
Having considered the entirety including site plan Ex.P19 prepared by PW7 in the presence of PW4 and PW6 also verified the fact that appellant was having shop on Jakhal to Sonthli Road. Furthermore, jamabandi Ex.P22 and electricity bill P23 were also exhibited by the prosecution to establish ownership and possession of appellant. Nothing was found in cross-examination which would be enough to contradict and discredit the statements of aforesaid witnesses, therefore, learned trial court has rightly concluded that appellant has committed electricity theft on 07.04.2022. After VCR assessment notice was issued to appellant and when he failed to deposit penalty as provided then only FIR
[2023:RJ-JP:15891]
[CRLAS-1349/2023]
(4 of 4)
was registered against him. Since offence under the Electricity Act is compoundable one, therefore, delay as referred herein would not be a material question particularly, when VCR was prepared on the spot itself.
As regard to sentence is concerned, appellant was not found on spot but premises belongs to him and electricity was consumed for his benefit. Learned trial court while taking liberal approach had imposed fine amount up to the extent as claimed by AVVNL. There is a policy of sentencing required to be followed by the trial court, while imposing sentence in any matter.
Considering aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of conviction and sentence as recorded by learned trial court, therefore, this appeal is devoid of merits and hence, same is dismissed.
Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
Arun/64
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal appeal against conviction under Section 135 Electricity Act is sustainable given discrepancy in land ownership claims and witness availability.
Whether imposition of fine as sentence is justified when appellant was not present at the spot during electricity theft.
Whether belated registration of FIR after VCR preparation affects validity of prosecution in compoundable offences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yogendra Singh Puniya
State Of Rajasthan
Ashok Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
