Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramzan Khan vs J.V.V.N.Ltd on 30 July, 2019
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 125/2011
Ramzan Khan S/o Shri Abdul Gaffur, B/c Musalman, R/o Sathin,
PS Pipar City, District Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. IR Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order 30/07/2019 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 10.02.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, Electricity Act Cases (Additional Session Judge No.1), Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present appellant for offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine ordered further five month's S.I. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 29.04.2010 at about 11:55 AM the Vigilance Committee of the respondent inspected the appellant's electricity connection (Account No.2115-
37) situated at his floor mill at village Sathin and allegedly found the push fit cover of the meter opened and upon removing the (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:32 AM) (2 of 4) cover, both the sticker seals were found to be tampered and the meter was found to be pasted after opening it. According to the respondent the meter was stopped at the reading of 1750 and average charge for 30 units per month was being taken. Against the appellant alleged VCR was filled up and the meter was seized. An FIR No.122/2010 of the above incident was lodged on 13.05.2010 at PS Prevention of Electricity Theft, Jodhpur Rural and the accused was arrested. After investigation, the Police filed challan against the appellant under Section 135 of Electricity Act.
Thereafter learned court below framed charge for offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and claimed for trial. During trial, seven prosecution witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. Thereafter statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, the appellant examined himself as DW-1 and got exhibited certain documents.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 10.02.2011 convicted the appellant for offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act and sentenced him as aforesaid.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence has taken place as back as in the year 2010 and the accused appellant has served in custody a period of two days out of total sentence of six months, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:32 AM) (3 of 4) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vaithi @ Vaithianathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Cr. Appeal Nos.1870-1871 of 2010 decided on 14.11.2011 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Electricity Act, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the court below as well as the record of the case.
It is not disputed that the occurrence relates to the year 2010 and the accused appellant has so far served a period of about two days in custody out of total six months' simple sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact the appellant has remained behind the bars for two days and also keeping in view the fact that the offence in question was committed nearly 9 years back, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act is reduced from six month' simple imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant.
In the case of Vaithi @ Vaithianathan (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while maintaining the conviction of the accused for offence under Electricity Act, reduced the sentence to the period (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:32 AM) (4 of 4) already undergone by the accused, which is about thirteen days. In the present case also, the accused-appellant has suffered about two days' sentence out of total sentence of six months.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant's conviction for offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the fine imposed by the trial court is concerned, the same has already been deposited by the appellant in compliance of the directions of this Court. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 28-MS/-
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:32 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)