PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners challenged the judgment dated 21.05.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-5 th Sheikhpura in Cr. Appeal No. 2/14/2011 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.12.2010 passed by Sri Sandeep Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-Sheikhpura in G.R. No. 520/1996 convicting the petitioners for an offence punishable under Sections 39, 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 379 of the IPC and further directing each of them to undergo S.I. for two years under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, S.I. for two years under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and S.I. for two years under Section 379 of the IPC with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently found modified and by such modification the conviction and sentence for an offence punishable under Sections 44 of the Indian Electricity Act as well as 379 IPC have been erased while conviction and sentence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act has been maintained.

(2.) Rajmangal Singh, PW-5 filed a written report on 07.06.1996 disclosing therein that under the leadership of Rama Shankar Singh, Executive Engineer, Electricity a raiding party was constituted to detect pilferage/theft of electric energy and accordingly, raid was conducted and during course thereof, house of Bijay Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Sakaldeo Singh and Bachchu Singh were raided and they all were found stealthily consuming the electricity by means of hook. Connecting wires were seized and for that seizure list was prepared. On the basis of the aforesaid written report Barbigha P.S. Case No. 202/1996 was registered whereupon investigation commenced and ultimately, charge-sheet was submitted followed with trial whereunder all the accused were convicted and the same with certain modification is found concurred during course of appeal, hence, this revision petition.

(3.) While exercising revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent finding of fact, the revisional court is forbidden from reappraising the evidence until and unless there happens to be glaring mistake visualizing from the record itself. That means to say, interference by the revisional court with regard to concurrent finding should not be made in routine as well as casual manner until and unless grave error is found on the record on account of mistake or illegality committed by the successive courts or the successive courts while deciding the case had itself committed such an error during course of appraisal of evidence, or during course of appreciation of law commanding the trial.