JUDGMENT : Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nehru Mahto, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.08.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal no. 159 of 1984 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lohardaga whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Lohardaga in G.R. No. 268 of 1976 vide T.R. No. 385 of 1984 has been affirmed and the sentence has been modified to fine of Rs. 500 under each Section. 3. It appears that on 23.11.1976 the connection of the Electricity of the consumer was disconnected by the Electricity Department due to non-payment of electricity bills. Subsequently it was found that the consumer has directly consumed electricity and running the motor pump. It is also alleged that on 12.12.1976 the officials of the Electricity Department had gone to the village to disconnect the illegal electrical connection but they were not allowed to do so. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 268 of 1976 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted, pursuant to which cognizance was taken and trial proceeded. In course of trial the prosecution having been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under section 379 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 39 and section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and were sentenced accordingly. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 159 of 1984 wherein although the order of conviction was sustained but the sentence was modified to a fine of Rs. 500/- under each Section. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fine amount has already been deposited. Be that as it may since the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of conviction the same is being dealt with in the subsequent paragraphs. 5. It appears that the prosecution had examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. Be that as it may since the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of conviction the same is being dealt with in the subsequent paragraphs. 5. It appears that the prosecution had examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. P.W.2 is the resident of the village who has stated that there is a lift irrigation system which was divided into two groups and the leader of one group is the petitioner whereas the leader of another group was one Hardayal Sahu who was also convicted by the learned trial court. This witness has further stated that the lands were irrigated by motor pump and electrical connection of these pumping sets are in the name of the leaders separately and the villagers used to give their electricity charges to their respective leaders and in turn these leaders are required to deposit the same to the Electricity Department. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are tendered witnesses whereas P.W.6 and P.W.7 are formal witnesses P.W.5 Masum Raja is one of the important witness who had deposed that he had gone to the village of the petitioner on 23.11.1976 along with P.W.8 and P.W.10 and had disconnected the electrical line. This witness had stated that subsequently he could come to know about the illegal use of the electricity by the petitioner. This witness has further stated that when this witness along with other persons had gone to disconnect the electrical connection the petitioner had abused them. P.W.8 Ramjee Mishra and P.W.10 Thomas Kujur were the persons who had accompanied P.W.5 at the time of disconnecting of electricity line. P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer who had visited the place of occurrence and had found electric motors in a running condition. Several documents were marked as exhibits which would suggest that there was a due with respect to the electricity charges from the petitioner. It thus appears from the evidence on record that the petitioner in spite of the electrical connection having been disconnected had continued to consume electricity illegally which had been proved by the prosecution in course of the trial. 6. In such view of the matter therefore no interference is necessitated in the impugned judgment and order of conviction as well as the judgment passed in appeal. 6. In such view of the matter therefore no interference is necessitated in the impugned judgment and order of conviction as well as the judgment passed in appeal. The learned appellate court on proper consideration of the facts of the case has diluted the period of sentence by directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 500/- each under Section 353 and Section 379 of the I.P.C. whereas Rs. 100/- each under section 44 and Rs. 100/- as a sentence under section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. Since proper and appropriate consideration has been made to the period of sentence there is no necessity to interfere in the period of sentence also as granted by the learned appellate court and accordingly having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.