The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirms the conviction for electricity theft under Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act but clarifies that, considering the elapsed time, age of the accused, and circumstances, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. Judgment follows existing precedent and may be cited as binding authority for sentence reduction in prolonged or aged matters involving similar offences.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/569/2008 of GIRDHARI LAL SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010108622008 |
| Date of Registration | 23-06-2008 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms findings of conviction; modifies sentence |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law / Electricity Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether sentence under Section 135 of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act can be reduced to period already undergone considering long pendency and circumstances. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where conviction for electricity theft under Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act is affirmed based on testimony and documentary evidence, sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone if mitigating factors are present. Long pendency of appellate proceedings (since 2008), appellant’s advanced age, and the fact that the fine has already been paid may justify such sentence reduction. The original conviction was supported by evidence, but the interests of justice may allow leniency in sentencing in suitable cases. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Judgment dated 24.06.2025 in CRA No. 1125 of 2007 (Devnath Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court | Relied upon prior precedent on sentence reduction for prolonged pendency (Devnath Nayak precedent) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Appellant convicted for theft of electricity by running a pump directly from LT line without valid meter; conviction based on testimony of Junior Engineer and Helper; challenged on grounds of insufficiency of evidence and procedural irregularity; sentence challenged in light of time elapsed and circumstances. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44939 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts for sentence reduction in similar factual circumstances |
| Follows | Judgment in CRA No. 1125 of 2007, Devnath Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (24.06.2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Sentence for conviction under Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act may be reduced to the period already undergone, particularly where the matter has been pending for a prolonged period and mitigating factors exist.
- The court maintained the conviction but modified the sentence, reflecting a balance between upholding the law and recognizing factors such as time elapsed, age of the appellant, and payment of fine.
- Lawyers can cite this case when seeking leniency in sentencing for old electricity theft cases with similar mitigating factors.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court reviewed the testimonial and documentary evidence, affirming that the prosecution had proven theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act.
- Key evidence included the eyewitness accounts of the Junior Engineer and Helper, documentary records, and panchnama establishing illegal electricity usage.
- The court addressed appellant’s arguments challenging the quality and sufficiency of evidence but found the lower court’s appreciation proper.
- On sentencing, the court took judicial notice of the time elapsed since the offence (since 2005), the age of the appellant (now about 60 years), and the fine having been paid.
- The court followed the ruling in Devnath Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 1125 of 2007, dated 24.06.2025), allowing sentence reduction to period already undergone where long pendency and other mitigating factors are established.
- Court directed immediate release and application of Section 481 BNSS 2023 (regarding personal bond).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The trial court’s finding is erroneous and not based on settled law.
- Lack of evidence to prove that the appellant committed theft by direct connection to LT line; key witnesses did not support the prosecution.
- The mandatory legal requirements for conviction were not met.
- Independent witnesses turned hostile.
- Alternatively, considering prolonged pendency, appellant’s age, time in jail, and full payment of fine, sentence should be reduced to period already undergone, relying on Devnath Nayak precedent.
Respondent (State):
- The trial court’s conviction was based on proper appreciation of evidence.
- No reason for the appellate court to interfere with conviction or sentence.
Factual Background
The case arose from an incident on 22.11.2005 in Khairjhiti village when electricity board officials discovered the appellant running a 1 HP motor directly from the LT line, bypassing the electricity meter to thresh paddy. A panchnama was prepared, and illegal connection apparatus was seized. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act. The trial court convicted the appellant, who challenged the conviction and sentence in appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 135 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Act: Addressed theft of electricity by direct connection from the LT line without a valid meter.
- Section 374(2) CrPC: Provides for appeal against conviction.
- Section 481 of BNSS 2023: Applied in ordering the appellant to furnish a personal bond and undertaking as a pre-condition for release in event of SLP before the Supreme Court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions reported in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
Appellant was directed to furnish a personal bond in accordance with Section 481 of BNSS 2023, with an undertaking to appear before the Supreme Court if an SLP is filed—reflecting the application of updated procedural law in criminal appeals.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment follows and applies prior precedent on sentence reduction in electricity theft cases with prolonged pendency.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44939
- Reliance on CRA No. 1125 of 2007, Devnath Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (judgment dated 24.06.2025)
- NAFR (Not Approved for Reporting)