Sheo Nandan Jaiswal vs State of U.P.

Virendra Saran, J.—Sheo Nandan Jaiswal has preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 2911985 of Shri Radha Kant, XII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur (M.A.) dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 80/M/84 against the judgment and order dated 1771984 of Sri S.P. Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Corporation, Kanpur convicting the applicant under Section 39/40 and 44 Electricity Act and sentencing him to 3 months'' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/on the first count and a fine of Rs.300/on the second count.

The prosecution case is that on 23111980 at about 8.30 the applicant''s premises No. 60/2, Purani Dal Mandi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Collectorganj, Kanpur was inspected by Sri Hridaya Narain Nigam and it was found that the applicant was running some electric motor in his Plastic Cutter Plant and the Dal Mill by taking direct connection with service line and bulbs were also lighted there. The applicant denied his guilt at the trial.

The two Courts below believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above. The applicant has now come up in revision before this Court.

When the case was called out no one appeared to press this revision. I have, however, gone through the material placed on the record of the revision with the help of learned State counsel. After a careful scrutiny of the judgment of the Courts below I am of the view that there is no such infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below so as to merit interference in a revision. In view of this the revision fails so far as the merits are concerned.

I have also considered the point of sentence. The offence in question was committed more than 20 years ago and to be more precise on 23111980. The applicant is an elderly person and in his affidavit dated 421985 he has mentioned his age as 55 years. The applicant must be now nearing 70 years of age. In view of this a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant.

The revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant for the offences under Sections 39/40 and 44 of the Electricity Act are affirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant under above sections arc set aside. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/under Section 39/40 and the sentence of fine of Rs. 300/ awarded to the applicant under Section 44 of the Electricity Act are affirmed. In default of payment of fine on cither count the applicant would suffer one month''s simple imprisonment. The applicant may deposit the fine within three months from today failing which law shall take its course. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged.

Revision partly allowed.