MADHAV S/O MOHANAJI JARANDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:44698


                                                                       CriAppeal-704-2016
                                                   -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.704 OF 2016

                 Madhav s/o Mohanaji Jarande
                 Age: 30 years, Occu.: Agri.,
                 R/o. Phutana, Tq. Hingoli,
                 Dist. Hingoli.                                           .. Appellant

                       Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra                                 .. Respondent

                                                    …
                 Mr. Ganesh P. Shinde, Advocate for the appellant.
                 Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar, APP for the respondent/State.
                                                    ...

                                                CORAM :      ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                Reserved on : 29.09.2026
                                                Pronounced on : 30.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :-

                 1.    In this appeal there is challenge to the judgment and order

                 dated 27.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

                 Hingoli in Special (Electricity) Case No.07 of 2011 recording

                 conviction under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.


                 2.    In short, the story of prosecution in trial Court is that on

                 15.06.2009 flying squad of MSEB paid surprise visit to village

                 Phutana i.e. to the house of appellant. Officials noticed theft of

                 electricity by extracting energy by use of hook attached to an
                                                     CriAppeal-704-2016
                                  -2-

overhead wire. Panchanama to that extent was carried out and on

behalf of MSEB authorities, PW1 filed complaint Exhibit-18, which

was investigated and through Jalna Taluka Police Station, accused

were charge-sheeted for offence under Section 135 of the Electricity

Act, 2003. Trial was conducted before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Hingoli vide Special (Electricity) Case No.07 of 2011, in which

three officials of MSEB were examined. The panchanamas and

photographs placed on record were appreciated by the learned Trial

Court. After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Court held that the

offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act was

proved against the appellant and, accordingly, convicted him and

sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,25,000/-, in default, to suffer

simple imprisonment for two months. Precisely, the said judgment

and order of conviction is now the subject matter of this appeal.


3.    Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there is

false implication. According to him, there was no convincing or

legally acceptable evidence on the point of theft of electricity. He

took this Court through the photographs snapped by PW1 and would

submit that in support of such evidence, the certificate under Section

65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was not placed on record. He further

pointed out that mere communication Exhibit-18 was issued alleging
                                                     CriAppeal-704-2016
                                  -3-

theft of electricity for a period of six months, but the same had no

foundation or basis. That, on what basis computation was done about

the quantity of theft has not been demonstrated. According to him,

no bill for consumption of said electricity was ever served to the

appellant, however, learned trial Court has accepted the case of

prosecution and recorded conviction which according to him error

committed by the learned trial Court. He also pointed out that though

spot panchanama is drawn, the witness while under cross-

examination has admitted that signature was effected on the

panchanama by sitting in the office and not at the spot and thus,

according to learned Counsel for the appellant, such quality of

evidence renders case of prosecution doubtful. He also pointed out

that there are allegations of running flour mill in the house, but

ownership of premises is also not established. For such reasons, he

criticized judgment and order of conviction and prays to allow the

appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order .


4.    Learned APP supported and justified the judgment and order of

conviction and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.


5.    Heard. Re-appreciated the evidence on record. Precise case of

the prosecution is that during visit to village Phutana on 15.06.2009,

PW1, PW2 and PW3, who were party to the flying squad of MSEB,
                                                   CriAppeal-704-2016
                                   -4-

noticed electricity extracted by use of hook in unauthorized manner

and that, it amounted to theft of electricity.


6.    Complainant PW1 deposed about drawing spot panchanama,

snapping photographs. According to him, there was theft of energy of

13500 units worth Rs.71,049/-. He identified panchanama as well as

photographs placed on record.

.     As pointed out, in cross-examination he admitted that he had

not collected the document pertaining to the ownership of premises

where the alleged flour mill was being run and for running the same,

electricity was stolen. As pointed out, though photographs are placed

on record, no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence

Act appears to have been produced through this witness for accepting

the photographs.


7.    PW2 seems to be the lineman and he also deposed about visit

to the village, noticing flour mill in operation in the house of

appellant by committing theft of electricity. He claims to have come

across three phase electric motor being run by drawing electricity

through an electric cable. Whereas PW3 deposed that they visited

house of appellant and drew panchanama Exhibit-15, but while under

cross-examination he admitted that he had not read the contents of

the spot panchanama Exhibit-15 and had signed the same while
                                                       CriAppeal-704-2016
                                  -5-

sitting in the office.


8.     Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of above evidence, here,

as pointed out, no independent witness has been examined and all

the witnesses seem to be of electricity department. Apparently, no

certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been

obtained to substantiate the photographs alleged to be of the premises

where the flour mill was said to be run. The prosecution witnesses

have admitted that no document was collected to establish that the

premises were owned by the appellant. More importantly, neither any

energy consumption bill has been served on the complainant, nor any

copy to that extent has been placed on record. Therefore, in the light

of above quality of evidence, case of prosecution rendered weak.

Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction cannot be

allowed to be sustain. Hence, the following order :-

                                ORDER


     I.    The Criminal Appeal is allowed.


     II.   The conviction awarded to the appellant – Madhav s/o
           Mohanaji Jarande by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
           Hingoli in Special (Electricity) Case No.07 of 2011 vide
           judgment and order dated 27.09.2016, under Section
           135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, stands quashed and set
           aside.
                                                     CriAppeal-704-2016
                                    -6-

      III. The appellant - Madhav s/o Mohanaji Jarande stands
           acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135
           of the Electricity Act, 2003.


      IV. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.


      V.   Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the
           appellant after the statutory period.


      VI. It is clarified that there is no change as regards the
           order regarding disposal of muddemal.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



scm