Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRA/28/2011 of RAMESH Vs MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDHYUT VITRAN CO.LTD. on 29 December 2023
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANION THE 29[th] OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 28 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
RAMESH S/O KISHANLAL MEENA, AGED ABOUT 55YEARS, OCCUPATION: KHETI, R/O GRAM BHASUNDAR,DISTT. SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI PAWAN VIJAYWARGIYA - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
ANDMADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDHYUTVITRAN CO. LTD. SHEOPUR, DISTT. SHEOPUR(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI RAJENDRA BHARGAVA - ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed thefollowing:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Appellant- Ramesh is present in person. He is duly identified by hiscounsel.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) ofCr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.12.2010 passed by SpecialJudge (Electricity), District Sheopur in Special Case No.199/2010 whereby theappellant has been convicted under Section 138(1)([k) of Electricity Act andsentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-with default stipulation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Asregards sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant thatappellant has been facing agony of trial since 2005 for a period of near about 18years. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence of the appellant may be reduced tillrising of the Court while awarding the suitable compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment but he has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of therecord, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence onrecord and rightly convicted the appellant under Section 138 (1)([k) ofElectricity Act. hence, conviction of the appellant under Section 138 (1)([k) ofElectricity Act needs no interference.
6. As regards sentence, looking to the facts and circumstances of thecase and evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends ofjustice would meet if while reducing the jail sentence of the appellant till rising ofthe Court, compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under Section 357 ofCr.P.C. Accordingly, instead of fine of Rs.10,000/- while affirming theconviction of the appellant under Section 138 (1)([k) of Electricity Act, jailsentence of the appellant is reduced till rising of the Court and compensation ofRs.25,000/- is awarded instead of fine of Rs.10,000/- in favour of thecomplainant. The appellant is directed to remain present before the trial Courtwithin a period of 60 days from today to serve the sentence of till rising of theCourt and within the aforesaid period also deposit the aforesaid amount ofcompensation, failing which the appellant will have to suffer the sentence as awarded by the trial Court. The fine amount, if any already deposited by theappellant be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of compensation. The entireamount of compensation deposited by the appellant in favour of thecomplainant as compensation under Section 357 of CrPC.7. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
Monika
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)JUDGE