Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1370 (MP)

Lachhiram v. State of M. P.

2013-11-12

Brij Kishore Dube

body2013
JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.7.2008 passed by the Special Judge (under Electricity Act), Guna in Special Sessions Trial No.111/2007 Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., v. Lachhiram) convicting the appellant/accused under section 138B of the Electricity Act, 2003 thereby sentenced him to suffer 06 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/, the appellant preferred this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code). 2. The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned judgment by the trial Court and, therefore, this Court does not want to repeat the same overall again. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant does not want to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the appellant undergone 15 days of sentence, the fine amount has already been deposited and there is no previous criminal conduct of the appellant, therefore, the learned counsel prays for reduction of the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record found guilt of the appellant under section 138B of the Electricity Act. In view of the reasons assigned by the learned Court below for convicting the appellant to be trustworthy, this Court does not want to deviate from the same. 6. As before this Court, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant has not been challenged by the appellant, hence, the aforesaid finding is hereby affirmed. 7. With regard to the sentence awarded is concerned, the appellant has been sentenced by the learned trial Court as stated hereinabove. No previous criminal conduct of the petitioner has been proved by the prosecution. As per the record, the appellant is serving the sentence with effect from 29.10.13 till date continuously. 8. The alleged incident had taken place on 27.11.2006, i.e., about 07 years, the accused had already suffered the sentence of 15 days from 29.10.2013 and till date continuously serving the sentence. The appellant is aged about 82 years. As per the record, the appellant is serving the sentence with effect from 29.10.13 till date continuously. 8. The alleged incident had taken place on 27.11.2006, i.e., about 07 years, the accused had already suffered the sentence of 15 days from 29.10.2013 and till date continuously serving the sentence. The appellant is aged about 82 years. Under these circumstances, the ends of justice would be subserved, if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him with fine as imposed by the Court below. 9. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant passed by the learned trial Court under section 138B of Electricity Act is hereby affirmed but the sentence is set aside and instead thereof, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail with fine as imposed by the learned Court below and in default of deposit of the fine amount, he has to undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment. The appellant is in jail, therefore, he be set at liberty if not required in any other criminal case. 10. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is disposed of finally. It is made clear that the respondent No. 2 is at liberty to recover the outstanding dues, if any, from the appellant as per law. 11. A copy of this judgement be sent to the learned trial Court for necessary compliance. Pramod Gohadkar for appellant; Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.