Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1864 (RAJ)

Shravan Kumar Oad v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-02

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 26.04.2011 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No. 1, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present appellant for offence under Section 136 of Electricity Act and sentenced to undergo two years' simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine ordered further one month S.I. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a written report was filed by complainant Shri Lakhanpal, Jr. En., Sub-Office, Pawanpuri Jodhpur Discom, Bikaner at Police Station Jai Narayan Vyas Colony alleging therein that two employees of the Discom namely Daulataram & Haidar were going for some Discom work. During the way, they saw two persons doing some work on the panel of transformer. When the Discom employees asked them, both the accused-persons ran away from there leaving their motorcycle and some other articles. On receiving the information, the complainant also reached at the site and he found that one panel of the transformer was opened in which one copper plate was missing and two copper plates were opened. On this report, FIR was registered under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 379 IPC by the complainant. Thereafter the appellant and another accused Prem were arrested. After investigation, the Police filed challan against the accused-persons under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 379 IPC. 3. Thereafter learned court below framed charge for offence under Section 136 of Electricity Act against the accused-persons. The accused-persons denied the charge and claimed for trial. During trial, eight prosecution witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. Thereafter statements of the accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No witness was examined in defence by the accused-persons. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 26.04.2011 acquitted the co-accused Prem but convicted the present accused-appellant for offence under Section 136 of Electricity Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. Thereafter statements of the accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No witness was examined in defence by the accused-persons. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 26.04.2011 acquitted the co-accused Prem but convicted the present accused-appellant for offence under Section 136 of Electricity Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence has taken place as back as in the year 2009 and the accused appellant has served in custody a period of seven days out of total sentence of two years, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Counsel further submits that on perusal of the record, it is apparent that there is no other criminal case of similar nature registered against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vaithi @ Vaithianathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Cr. Appeal Nos. 1870-1871 of 2010 decided on 14.11.2011 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Electricity Act, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the court below as well as the record of the case. 8. It is not disputed that the occurrence relates to the year 2009 and the accused appellant has so far served a period of about seven days in custody out of total two years' simple sentence and on perusal of the record, it is revealed that the appellant has not committed any other criminal case of similar nature, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact the appellant has remained behind the bars for seven days and also keeping in view the fact that the offence in question was committed nearly 10 years back, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 136 of Electricity Act is reduced from two years' simple imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant. 9. In the case of Vaithi @ Vaithianathan (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while maintaining the conviction of the accused for offence under Electricity Act, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused, which is about thirteen days. In the present case also, the accused-appellant has suffered about seven days' sentence out of total sentence of two years. 10. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant's conviction for offence under Section 136 of Electricity Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the fine imposed by the trial court is concerned, the same is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-. Two months' time is hereby granted to deposit the fine, failing which the appellant shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. 11. The record of trial Court be sent back forthwith.