IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2014 of 2006 Date of decision: 26th November, 2011 Parkash Chand … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, Haryana State Electricity Board, Siwan addressed a letter Ex.PW3/A to Station House Officer, Police Station Siwan on 24th July, 1998, wherein he stated that R.L. Jain, SDO (Design) posted as SDO, Incharge of the area, checked the premises of consumer Parkash accused-petitioner on 24th July, 1998 at about 7.15 p.m. in the presence of Tarsem Singh, JE and B.S. Gupta, Assistant Foreman. On checking, it was found that the electric energy was being abstracted illegally and dishonestly through artificial means, i.e. by inserting a bamboo stick in the hole made in the body of electric meter by the consumer. Furthermore, the meter and u/c cable measuring 70 feet were removed. Thus, according to the raiding team of Electricity Board, it was a case of theft of electricity and by his acts of omission and commission, the petitioner had caused a loss to the Electricity Board to the tune of Rs.1,28,014/-. A request was made that a criminal case be registered against the accused. It was registered vide FIR No.244 dated Criminal Revision No.2014 of 2006 17.08.1998 under Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal. The above said FIR was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The petitioner was charged under Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Act. Prosecution examined Tarsem Singh JE as PW-1; B.S. Gupta, AFM as PW-2; complainant R.L. Jain as PW-3; HC Mange Ram as PW-4 and ASI Mohan Lal, Incharge, Police Post Rasowa as PW-5. The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Kaithal relied upon the testimony of the above said three official witnesses of the Electricity Board and vide its judgment dated 12th March, 2004 held the petitioner guilty of an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Act. Vide a separate order dated 13th March, 2004 the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The same was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19th September, 2006. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has stated that the petitioner had undergone two days as an undertrial. He further states that after his appeal was dismissed the petitioner was taken into custody on 19th September, 2006 and his sentence was suspended by this Court on 13th November, 2006. Hence, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of about 2 months. Counsel has submitted that he is conscious that he will not be able to impeach the 2 Criminal Revision No.2014 of 2006 credibility of the official witnesses who have found insertion of a bamboo stick in the electric meter for abstraction of electric energy illegally by the petitioner. Counsel has stated that now the new Indian Electricity Act has been enacted in which there is a provision for composition of the offence. It is stated that during the pendency of trial, State Government has also issued instructions for composition of the offence. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that even otherwise, by initiating coercive methods the amount of penalty may have been recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that under the provisions of Electricity Rules, the petitioner can approach the appellate authority and the revisional authority for reduction of penalty imposed. It is submitted that whatever the amount of penalty is due, the petitioner cannot run away and will pay the same. However, it is stated that since the petitioner has undergone an actual sentence of about two months, the fine be enhanced and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone, taking into consideration that the petitioner is not the one who is having criminal antecedents and being a small entrepreneur was allured to commit the offence of theft of electricity. It is further stated that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to reform himself and lead a path of rectitude. In the present case, occurrence had taken place in July, 1998. A period of more than 13 years has elapsed. Petitioner is in the corridors of Court for such a long period. He has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial. The same can be taken as a mitigating circumstance along with the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 3 Criminal Revision No.2014 of 2006 Thus, taking totality of circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The fine be deposited by the petitioner and the same be disbursed to the successor organization of Haryana State Electricity Board. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, the observations made herein above will not absolve the petitioner from the penalty amount which he has to pay under the provisions of the Act. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 26, 2011 rps 4