SHIV PRASAD PATEL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Digitally signed by
MOHAMMED
AADIL KHAN
Date: 2026.11.05
18:22:51 +0530
1

CGHC010282792019 2026:CGHC:46595
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1271 of 2019
1 - Shiv Prasad Patel S/o Shri Ugrasen Patel, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village
Salheona, Police Station Sariya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sariya,
District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Judgment on Board
03-11-2026
1. The appellant has filed the present Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of
the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
08-08-2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, (under the Electricity Act)
District Raigarh (C.G.) in Electricity Act Case No.2060000017/2016 whereby
the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 135 of the Indian
Fine amount of Rs.7,05,417/- in default of
Electricity Act, 2003
payment of fine amount S.I. for 09 months.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 02-03-2016 the Junior
Engineer of C.G. State Power Distribution Company Ltd. (in short ‘the
CSPDCL’) found that during inspection of the electricity line that there was

2
use of electricity by direct hooking from LT line in the agricultural field of the
appellant situated behind the hostel, village Salheona, District Raigarh. The
loss due to illegal electricity connection was assessed of worth Rs.2,35,139/-
and a report was submitted by the Junior Engineer to police under Section
135 of the Electricity Act for registration of the FIR. The FIR Ex.-P/7 was
registered against the appellant. The panchanamas which were prepared by
the officers of the CSPDCL during the inspection have been seized.
Statement of the witnesses have been recorded and after commission of
investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence
under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003
before the learned trial Court.
3. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant for offence under
Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The appellant denied the charge and
claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant the prosecution has
examined as many as 4 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section
313 has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances that
appears against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been
falsely implicated in the offence. He is consumer of the CSPDCL and having
electric connection in his name for agricultural purposes. He is having a
separate electricity connection for his house and just behind his house his
agricultural field is situated. He never did any work of brick kiln and nor he
committed any theft of electricity. The accused himself has been examined as
DW-1.
5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the
appellant for the alleged offence as has been mentioned in the earlier part of
this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

3
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material
omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which
cannot be made basis to convict the appellant for the alleged offence. The
prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case who are
the employee of the CSPDCL itself. Even there is no evidence that the
subject premises is owned by the appellant. Except the seizure of electric
wire of about 3 meter no other article has been seized. The panchnamas
prepared by authorities of the CSPDCL does not bear any signature of the
appellant and it has been mentioned that the appellant has refused to sign
the panchnamas, whereas, there is no signature of any witnesses who would
say that the appellant has refused to sign the panchnamas. He would further
submit that there is no independent witness in the case. The witness who
have gone on the spot for inspection have not made any enquiry from the
persons available in the surroundings and and except the departmental
witnesses no other independent witnesses have been called by the
prosecution. All the paper formalities have been prepared behind the back of
the appellant only to prosecute him for the offence in question. He would
further submit that the electricity connection of the appellant was
disconnected on the same day for which a memo Ex.-D/1 was issued to him
and on his request his electricity connection was reinstated. There is no
independent investigation by the Investigating Officer and only on the basis
of the documents submitted by the officers of the CSPDCL the charge sheet
has been filed against the appellant. There are material omissions and
contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which are not
sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the alleged offence, therefore, the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from illegality and
perversity and the same is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled
for his acquittal.

4
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit
that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for
minor omission or contradiction the evidence of prosecution witnesses are
sufficient and reliable to hold the appellant guilty for the alleged offence. The
appellant has refused to sign the document on spot at the time when the
inspection was carried out by PW-1. The seizure has been mentioned in the
panchnama Ex.-P/1 and P/2 which has been submitted before the police for
registration of the FIR. During inspection it was found that the appellant was
using the electricity connection illegally by hooking from the LT line through
which the electricity connection was provided to him in his house. The loss
has rightly been assessed by the officers of the CSPDCL and since the
appellant was found in illegal use of the electricity connection he was
prosecuted and ultimately convicted by the learned trial Court. The evidence
produced by the prosecution is reliable and sufficient to maintain his
conviction. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and
the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
learned trial Court.
9. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary
evidence led by the prosecution held the appellant guilty for the offence
under Section 135 of the Electricity Act for theft of electricity. It is alleged that
the appellant was committing theft of electricity by hooking from the LT line
and used it in his brick kiln which was illegally run by him.
10. PW-1 Pramod Tigga is the Junior Engineer who conducted the inspection on
the spot. He stated in his evidence that the appellant was provided domestic
electricity connection from the department. On 02-03-2016 he along with
Assistant Line-man Akhilesh Agar and Assistant Rajkumar Ratre had gone to

5
village Salheona to inspect the electricity connection and during their
inspection they found that the appellant is using electricity illegally by running
his 5 HP agricultural pump and using electricity lights in his brick kiln. At the
time of inspection the appellant himself was present along with Kotwar
Padumlal, and other persons Kishan Kumar Ijardar, Frenchaji Sariya and
Mukteshwar Patel were also present. During inspection he seized 3 meters
electricity wire and prepared the panchnama Ex.-P/1, spot inspection report
Ex.-P/2, seizure memo Ex.-P/3, spot map Ex.-P/4. On assessment the loss of
Rs.2,35,139/- was assessed and assessment sheet Ex.-P/5 was prepared.
He also gave a written complaint Ex.-P/6 to the police and FIR then FIR Ex.-
P/7 was registered. The seizure memo Ex.-P/8 was also prepared and the
spot map has been prepared by the police which is Ex.-P/9. In cross-
examination he stated that on the date of incident he has not inspected any
other electricity connection at village Salheona and he voluntarily stated that
against the appellant there was an outstanding amount of electricity charges
and for its recovery he had gone there. He further stated that in the process
of recovery of electricity charges, he disconnected the electricity connection
of the appellant. He did not know as to whether the house and agricultural
field of the appellant are adjacent or not. He voluntarily stated that for
disconnection of electricity connection he himself had not gone there, but he
sent his staff Akhilesh Aagar and Rajkamal Ratre and they have
disconnected the electricity connection. The campus which has been
inspected by him is situated at the distance of half kilometer from the house
of the appellant. At the time of inspection the appellant was in his house. He
further admitted that the campus in which the tubewell and brick cline was
shown in the spot map Ex.-P/4, he did not know about its ownership. The
appellant himself said that it is his property. He further admitted that the
appellant is a agriculturist and he does not run any brick kiln. He further
stated that the appellant is working in a brick kiln, but he himself did not see

6
him working in the brick kiln. He further admitted that the himself has not
made any enquiry from the concerned Patwari about the ownership of the
subject premises. On the date of incident he had gone there at 02:50 p.m.
and stayed there for about 15-20 minutes. Thereafter, he proceeded towards
Power House Salheona where the appellant also came for restitution of his
electricity connection. He further admitted that he has not enquired from any
person from the hostel which has been shown in the spot map Ex.-P/4. He
denied that due to disconnection of the electricity line of the appellant’s
house the dispute arose between them and for that reason he prepared a
false case against him.
11. PW-2 Rajkamal Ratre is Line Assistant Grade III posted at CSPDCL Sariya.
He stated in his evidence that he alongwith the Junior Engineer and Vijay
Patel had gone to the inspection of electricity connection with respect to the
electricity connection of appellant Shiv Prasad Patel. He did not know as to
whether Shiv Prasad Patel had taken illegal or legal connection. On the
instance of the Junior Engineer they disconnected the aforesaid connection
and seized the electricity wire. They also prepared panchnama Ex.-P/1. At
the time of inspection the appellant was present on the spot. Thereafter, they
informed it to the police. In his presence the police has not seized anything,
though his signature is there in the document Ex.-P/8. At this stage this
witness has been declared hostile and when leading question was asked by
the prosecution he admitted that the appellant was running 5 HP tubewell
pump by direct hooking. He did not know as to whether any electricity bulb
was using or not. In cross-examination he admitted that at Village Salheona,
adjacent to the house of the appellant his agricultural field is situated. The 5
HP tubewell pump is also fixed in his agricultural field. Electricity meter was
also installed in the house of the appellant and he did not know about its load
capacity. He denied that there was outstanding bill of electricity against the

7
appellant. He subsequently, stated that his electricity connection was
disconnected for want of payment of electricity bills, but he did not know as to
whether it was reconnected on his request or not. He has not made any
enquiry with respect to 5 HP tubewell pump of the appellant. He could not tell
as to which document he signed in the house of the appellant and which
document he signed in the electricity office.
12. PW-3 Akhilesh Aagar is Assistant Lineman who was also a member of the
inspection team. He stated in his evidence that he did not know about any
incident and he has not gone on the spot. On the instance of the officers of
the electricity department he signed the documents in the office. When
leading question was asked from this witness, he denied that he
accompanied the officers of the CSPDCL for inspection and prepared
panchnamas there. He also denied that during inspection they found illegal
use of electricity by the appellant by hooking and they disconnected the
same.
13. PW-4 Heeralal Tiwari is the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated in his
evidence that on 08-03-2016 he received written complaint from the Junior
Engineer, CSPDCL Sariya for registration of the FIR against the appellant on
which he registered the FIR Ex.-P/7 under Section 379 of the IPC and
Section 135 of the Electricity Act. He forwarded the copy of the FIR to the
jurisdictional Magistrate at Sarangarh which is Ex.-P/10. He also prepared
spot map Ex.-P/9 and seized the electricity wire vide seizure memo Ex.-P/8.
He arrested the appellant and recorded the statement of the witnesses and
then charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. In cross-
examination he admitted that he received information from the CSPDCL for
registration of the FIR after about 6 days and before that the electricity
department has completed the entire formalities. After receiving the
information from the CSPDCL he did the further proceeding. He admitted that

8
there is overwriting in column No.5 of the spot map and there is no four
corners shown in the spot map. He further admitted that he has not made
any independent person as witness in the spot map. He further admitted that
in the present case there is no independent witnesses and he has not
recorded statement of any of them and all the witnesses are departmental
witnesses. He also has not recorded the statement of the seizure witnesses
and has not named the seizure witnesses Bisan Kumar, Mukteshwar Patel
and Padumlal Chouhan as cited witness in the case. With respect to the fact
that the appellant is also a consumer of the electricity department he has not
separately enquired the matter. He further admitted that he has not obtained
any revenue document with respect to ownership of the field where the 5 HP
tubewell pump was installed and also has not obtained the ownership of the
subject field.
14. From the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is clear that
there is no independent witnesses in the case and all the witnesses are
departmental witness. PW-3 Akhilesh Aagar has turned hostile and not
supported the prosecution’s case. There is no signature of the appellant in
the panchnama Ex.-P/1 and P/2 and it has been mentioned that the appellant
has refused to sign the document, whereas, his refusal has also not been
supported by any independent witness. Had the appellant refused to sign the
panchnama prepared in his presence, it ought to have been supported by the
persons who were present on the spot that the appellant has refused to sign
the document, whereas, there is no evidence to this effect. Even there is no
evidence on record that the subject field where the alleged electricity
connection was being used illegally belongs to the present appellant. There
is no seizure of tubewell pump which was running through the alleged illegal
connection and only 3 meter electricity wire has been seized by the officers
of CSPDCL.

9
15. From the evidence of the Junior Engineer PW-1 Pramod Tigga, he himself
had not gone to disconnect the electricity pump connection and as per his
evidence the appellant was in his house at that time. The witness Akhilesh
Aagar, Assistant Line-man who had gone there, has turned hostile and not
supported the prosecution’s case. From the evidence of the Investigating
Officer and other prosecution witnesses it is apparent that there is nothing on
record to suggest that the field from where the electricity wire was seized with
the allegation that the appellant was illegally running his 5 HP tubewell pump
were belonged to the appellant. The learned trial Court while recording the
finding of conviction did not appreciate that the field on which the alleged
running of tubewell pump was stated, was belonged to the appellant. Further
the entire inspection proceeding has not been supported by any independent
witness.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion and the evidence available on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was responsible for unauthorised
use of electricity as alleged. The material contradictions and omissions in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, absence of independent witnesses,
failure to establish the appellant's ownership or possession of the field in
question, and lack of reliable evidence connecting him with the alleged illegal
electricity connection create serious doubt regarding the prosecution's case.
The learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate these material
infirmities while recording the finding of conviction.
17. Accordingly, this Court finds sufficient ground to interfere with the conviction
and sentence of the appellant as the same suffered from perversity and
illegality. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed . The
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial
Court is set aside . The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled

10
against him extending benefit of doubt.
18. The record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment
for compliance and necessary action.

Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Aadil