CRIMINAL APPEAL 2854 of 2016 on 1 April 2024

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against theimpugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2016passed by Special Judge/First Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in SessionTrial No.01/2013, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellantsNo.1-4 and 5 for commission of offence under Section 136 and 137 ofElectricity Act, 2003 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment forone year and fine of Rs.10,000/- each respectively.

2. The prosecution case against the appellants is that on 27.07.2012, itwas found that sometime prior to that date some electric components from 5transformers were stolen. The reason for delay was that theft was detected afterinspection of lines. The appellants No.1-4 have been convicted for theft underSection 136 and appellant No.5 has been convicted for receiving stolenproperty under Section 137.

3. Looking to the material evidence on record, deposition of PW1 Sunil, PW-2 Ranjeet Kumar, PW-3 Nitin, PW-4 Gulab Singh and other witnesses, theTrial Court found the offence to be proved for offences as mentioned above.

4. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it isfound that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of theaccused-appellants are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded inproving the case against the accused-appellant. There is nothing in crossexamination of the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus, there is nothing in the said findings of the trial court that can be said to beerroneous or perverse, warranting interference by this Court in Appellatejurisdiction.

5. Thus, the conviction of the appellants as ordered by the trial court ishereby upheld.

6. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to betaken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. Theappellants/accused is first offender and the incident took place in the year 2012and accused/appellant had faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2016, theaccused/appellants had been under trial or appearing before the Court ascondition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come on recordregarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the longperiod since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending. Thus, this Courtdeems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellants No.1 to 4 to the periodalready undergone by them (Appellant No.1 to 3 for fourteen days, AppellantNo.4 for four days) and to enhance the fine to additional amount of Rs.5,000/-each (Five Thousand) for Appellants No.1 to 4 and additional amount ofRs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) for Appellant No.5, who is sentenced with fineonly.

7. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned convictionis maintained. However, the appellant/accused persons are sentenced toundergo imprisonment for the period they have already undergone (AppellantNo.1 to 3 for fourteen days, Appellant No.4 for four days and Appellant No.5Nil), subject to depositing the additional fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each (FiveThousand) for the Appellants No.1 to 4 and additional fine amount ofRs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) for Appellant No.5 within a period of three months from today.

8. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court isnot deposited within a period of three months from today, then the originalsentence would come into operation and appellant shall be taken into custodyor they would surrender themselves to serve the entire jail sentence of one yearas awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.

9. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.

10. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.

11. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court recordalongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for informationand necessary compliance.

12. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.

veni

(VIVEK JAIN)V. JUDGE