ORDER Srivastava, J. -- 1. With the consent of both the parties, this criminal appeal heard finally. 2. This appeal under section 156 of Electricity Act, 2003 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and finding dated 21.4.2011 passed by Special Judge (Electricity), Jabalpur in M. E. C No. 217/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 135 of Electricity Act and awarded the sentence for six months R. I. with fine of Rs. 27,660/-, in default of payment of fine further 3 months R. I. 3. Case of prosecution in nutshell is that, on 8.1.2007, complainant-witness namely J. K. Naskar, who was the in-charge of flying squad, went to the Gram Sajapani for checking of theft of electricity with Ajay Kumar Rajput (complaint-witness No. 2) and Suraj Prasad Kachhi (complaint-witness No. 3). On inspection they found that accused-appellant was thefting electricity by connecting motor direct from the electricity pole. They prepared panchnama against the appellant. The allegation against the appellant is that due to this theft, the company was in loss of Rs. 11,886/- therefore, they registered the case against the present appellant. In the trial, the complainant examined four witnesses. After examining the evidence available on record, the learned Special Court found guilty to appellant for the offence under section 135(A) and convicted as aforesaid. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no offence made out against the appellant, whereas there were many contradictions and omissions found in the statements of the complainant-witness, there is also doubt in the complaint story. The learned trial Court did not consider the defence evidence produced by the appellant and convicted him. Therefore, the findings of the special Court is perverse and the conviction awarded by the Special Court is not sustainable. He further submits that the appellant is also handicap person. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed and judgment of the Special Court be quashed. 5. Heard the arguments of counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. The complainant has examined four witnesses in trial, namely J. K. Naskar (CW 1), Ajay Kumar Rajput (CW 2), Suraj Prasad Kachhi (CW 3) and Rajeshwar Pandey (CW 4) and also recorded the statement of accused under section 313 of CrPC. Appellant has also examined one defence witness, namely Beshkhu, in support of his case. 6. The complainant has examined four witnesses in trial, namely J. K. Naskar (CW 1), Ajay Kumar Rajput (CW 2), Suraj Prasad Kachhi (CW 3) and Rajeshwar Pandey (CW 4) and also recorded the statement of accused under section 313 of CrPC. Appellant has also examined one defence witness, namely Beshkhu, in support of his case. Bare perusal of evidence available on record it is found that on 8.1.2007 when the flying squad of Electricity Board made the inspection at Gram Sajapani then they found that the appellant has connected his motor direct from the electricity pole to watering down in his farm. On asking about the connection paper, the appellant could not able to produce the same. On perusal of statement of accused recorded by the Special Court under section 313 of the CrPC. accused-appellant has admitted this fact that he was caught by the flying squad during irrigation in his farm through connecting submersible pump and he has also admitted this fact that he has no temporary connection in this regard. 7. After careful examination of evidence available on record and submissions of appellant's counsel, this court has found appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 135 of Electricity Act. Therefore, conviction recorded by the learned Special Court is hereby confirmed. 8. As far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place in 2007 and appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of about 5 months out of conviction of 6 months. Considering this fact and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused should be reduced to the period of imprisonment which already undergone by him to meet the ends of justice. 9. Therefore, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. In this way, the appellant is sentenced for offence punishable under section 135 of Electricity act to the period already undergone. So far as concerned fine amount with default stipulation, be as it is, as imposed by the Special Court. 10. The appellant is in custody and he shall be released if he shall pay fine amount imposed by the Special Court and his detention is not required in any other case. 11. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately, along with a copy of this judgment for necessary compliance. 12. Accordingly, appeal is disposed off.