AP High Court Reduces Fine Imposed On 84-Year-Old Man In Jail For Electricity Theft To ₹20K Citing 'Extreme Old Age'

Setting aside the said fine, Justice Y. Lakshamana Rao held,

“Section 135(1)(a)(b) of 'the Act' does not confer imposition of Rs.2,70,000/- towards fine. There would have been a justification on the part of the learned Trial Court, if reasonable amount was directed to be paid by the Appellant towards compensation to the Corporation. The petitioner has been in jail for the past fifteen days. He is aged about 84 years at present. If an amount of Rs.20,000/- is directed to be paid towards compensation to the Corporation, it would meet the ends of justice.”

"In view of the extreme old age of the Appellant and the Appellant's impoverishment in payment of huge amount as fine, it is appropriate to direct the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation to the Corporation," the court said. 

The court said that after the compensation of Rs.20,000 is paid by the appellant, he "shall be released forthwith". 

Background

The High Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), challenging the conviction and sentence of the appellant handed down by the Special Tribunal under Electricity Act–Cum- I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur (trial Court), on 02.05.2025 (impugned order).

Initially, in a raid conducted by the Assistant Engineer, Vigilance Department on 18.04.2018, the appellant was found to have indulged in tampering with the electrical meter and had also resorted to pilferage of energy worth Rs.44,859/-. A case was registered against him and the Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence tabled by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the offence as charged.

Having been found guilty under Section 135(1)(a)(b) of the Act, the appellant, vide the impugned order, was ordered to pay a fine amounting to Rs.2,70,000/-, failing which he shall would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months in terms of Section 235(2) of the CrPC. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the Criminal Appeal, challenging his conviction and the sentence imposed.

With respect to the conviction of the appellant, the Court observed,

“The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses thoroughly, found the Appellant guilty. The accused could not elicit anything from the cross examination of the witnesses that he was innocent and had not committed the offence. There were no infirmities in the evidence of PWs1 to 7. There is technical evidence available against the Appellant. As the prosecution proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 135(1)(a)(b) of 'the Act'.”

However, with respect to the sentence imposed on the appellant, the Court noted that in the audit, a total of Rs.44,850/- was determined by the Power Corporation, however, the appellant was fined with Rs. Rs.2,70,000/-.

The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 135(1)(a)(b), while setting aside the payment of fine of Rs.2,70,000/- and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.20,000 to the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited within 1 month.

Case Title: Peram Venkata Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Click Here To Read/Download Order