ORDER N.K. Gupta , J. All the six revision applications were arose from different judgments passed by the First Special Judge under the Electricity Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'The Act'), Sagar but, since a common law point is involved in the case, therefore, all the revision applications are hereby decided by this common order. 2. The learned First Special Judge, Sagar vide various judgments in various cases, convicted the respondents for the offence punishable under section 135 of the Electricity Act and imposed fine as mentioned below:- S.No. Criminal Revision No. Special Case No. Date of Judgment Fine imposed Description of offence 1. 498/2009 368/2006 11-2-2009 10,000/- Sec. 135 of the Act. 2. 499/2009 824/2006 11-2-2009 2,500/- Sec. 135 of the Act. 3. 525/2008 1230/2006 22-1-2008 1,500/- Sec. 135 of the Act. 4. 526/2008 1221/2006 25-1-2008 3,500/- Sec. 135 of the Act. 5. 527/2008 1222/2006 25-1-2008 5,000/- Sec. 135 of the Act. 6. 1142/2008 851/2006 28-4-2008 1,800/- Sec. 135 of the Act. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, the applicant/complainant has preferred the present revisions for enhancement of sentence passed by the trial Court. 3. The facts of the case, relating to the present revisions, in short, are that, the respondents were found committing the theft of electrical energy by taking a direct line in their premises and found running flour mills with help of motors of various capacities and therefore, spot memos were prepared by the officers of the Electricity Board and complaints were filed against the respondents. 4. The learned Special Judge after convicting the respondents for offence punishable under section 135 of the Electricity Act, imposed fine upon the respondents as mentioned above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the trial Court has computed the civil liability under section 126 of the Act, whereas it was to be computed under section 154 (5) of the Act and therefore, fine imposed upon the respondents was low and it should be enhanced in the present revisions. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the present provision of section 154 (5) of the Act were not prevalent in the year 2006. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the present provision of section 154 (5) of the Act were not prevalent in the year 2006. The new provisions were applied w.e.f. 15.6.2007 and therefore, at the time of commission of the crime, the Special Court had a discretionary power to impose a civil liability upon the respondents or not and therefore, if the trial Court has used its discretionary power then, it is not illegal and no interference can be done in the discretion used by the Special Court. 8. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the respondents were the first offenders and in such type of cases, it was not required for the trial Court to impose the jail sentence upon the respondents because they were the first offenders. It was the discretion of the trial Court to impose the jail sentence or not in such cases. Under such circumstances, if the trial Court has not imposed any jail sentence to the respondents then, no illegality has been done by the learned Special Judge. 9. The provisions of section 154 (5) of the Act, in the year 2006 were discretionary and therefore, it was not necessary for the trial Court to fix a civil liability upon the accused. The trial Court did not base upon the provision of section 126 of the Act in computation of a civil liability and therefore, it cannot be said that a mistake was committed in such a computation. It is apparent from the provisions of section 126 of the Act that the officers of the Electricity Board could assess the amount of theft of electrical energy and the Board was empowered to recover such assessed amount from the consumers and therefore, if fine is increased then, still the Board has its own power to recover the entire assessed amount, as assessed under section 126 of the Act. 10. Looking to the provisions of section 154 (5) of the Act, where an assessment of civil liability can be done, it was not necessary for the trial Court to include the entire civil liability in the fine imposed against the accused. Hence, it was not necessary for the trial Court to impose the amount of fine according to the assessment done by the complainant. Hence, it was not necessary for the trial Court to impose the amount of fine according to the assessment done by the complainant. The trial Court has used the assessment under section 126 of the Act to consider the fine amount for imposition and therefore, if such type of computation has been done then, it cannot be said that the trial Court has imposed a lesser fine in the case. Amount of fine imposed by the trial Court is under its discretionary power. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial Court has committed an error of law in imposing the lesser fine upon the respondents. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no illegality or perversity visible in the aforesaid orders passed by the learned First Special Judge under the Electricity Act, Sagar and therefore, no interference is required from the side of this Court, by way of a revision. Consequently, all the revision applications filed by the applicant are hereby dismissed. 12. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with its records for information in each case.