JABALPUR, India, June 17 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 14:

1. Heard on I.A. No.906/2023 - an application seeking grant of leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.07.2022 passed in Special Case No.192/2016 by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Bijawar, District Chhatarpur, (M.P.) whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

2. The complaint of the Officer/Complainant, that the complainant, Ganesh Daheria, was posted as Junior Engineer in M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited, Buxwaha District, Chhatarpur. The complaint, in brief, is that on 15.07.2015, he was conducting an inspection in village Majhaura regarding electricity theft. He found that the accused was illegally using electricity at his establishment by directly hooking a katiya to the L.T. line of the electricity company. At the spot, he found a flour mill being operated with a 3 H.P. electric motor at the accused's establishment, with a total load of 2238 watts. On finding the accused stealing electricity with dishonest intent, a site map of the incident location was prepared on the spot and a panchnama was drawn up. The accused refused to sign the panchnama. The accompanying employee witnesses Govinda Kushwaha and Rajbhan Patel signed it. A provisional assessment order no. 8572/3 dated 28.07.2015 was prepared, a copy of which was given to the accused. Due to the said act of the accused, the electricity company suffered a financial loss of Rs. 25,568/-. The act of the accused falls under the category of a cognizable offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is an offence punishable with fine and imprisonment. Hence, the complaint be accepted and the accused be proceeded against in accordance with law.

3. Thereafter a charge sheet was filed. Charge was framed against the accused. The accused denied the charges levelled against him and sought trial.

4. In order to bring home charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 02 witnesses, namely, Ganesh Kumar Dehriya (PW-1) and Rajbhan Patel (PW-2), whereas, the accused has not examined in his defense and placed Ex.P/1 and P/2 the documents on record.

5. Learned trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties acquitted the respondent/accused, hence, this appeal.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court erroneously acquitted the respondent/accused on the ground that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution and no independent witness had signed the panchnama (Ex.P/1) prepared at the spot.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2023/CRA/807/CRA_807_2023_FinalOrder_14-05-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.