1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Reserved on 8-5-2026

Pronounced on 15-06-2026

ACQA No. 714 of 2019

•Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., through

Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division (Distribution) Pradeep Painkra

(Operation & Maintenance) Division Chhattisgarh State Power

Distribution Company Ltd., Champa District Champa (CG).

... Appellant

versus

•Dinesh Chandra s/o. Late Soopcharan Chandra, age 41 years, r/o.

Village Bansula, P.S. Bamnidih, District Janjgir Champa (CG).

... Respondent

For appellant :Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.

For Respondent :Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate.

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

CAV Judgment

1.This Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Chhattisgarth

State Power Distribution Company Limited against the judgment of

acquittal dated 3-11-2016 passed by the learned Special Judge

(designated under Electricity Act 2003), District Janjgir Champa,

wherein the learned Special Judge dismissed the criminal complaint

case filed by the appellant against the respondent for commission of

offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short “Act of

2003”) and acquitted the respondent/accused from the charges.

2

2.The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant/Chhattisgarth

State Power Distribution Company Limited has filed a complaint under

Section 135 (1) of the Act of 2003 before the Special Court Janjgir

Champa alleging that:

(a)On 10-3-2014 at about 2 ‘O clock a vigilance team consisting of

R.K. Acharya, Executive Engineer, Vinod Kumar Mahilange,

Assistant Lineman and Ramji Pandit, Assistant Lineman have

inspected the house of the respondent in presence of Smt.Vimla

Bai representative and wife of the accused/respondent and found

that the electricity connection bearing Meter (B.P. No.

1001619924) obtained by the accused has already been

disconnected by them due to non-payment of electricity charges,

but the accused illegally used the electricity by hooking the wire

directly from Low Tension Line and was running fan, cooler, TV,

water-pump, bulb, CFL bulb and illegally consumed 1606 Watt

electricity.

(b)A Panchnama (Ex. P/3) regarding the unauthorized use of

electricity, Inspection Report (Ex. P/4) seizure memo (Ex. P/5),

Map (Ex. P/6), Form No. 2, Form No. 4 (Ex. P/1 & P/3),

calculation sheet (Ex. P/7) were prepared and Form 5 (Ex. P/8)

was issued to the appellant assessing the charge to the tune of

Rs. 43,623/-. Thereafter, the appellant filed a complaint under

Section 135(1) of the Act of 2003 before the learned Special

Judge and also prayed that the demand bill of Rs. 43,623.00

(Rupees forty-three thousand six hundred twenty-three only) be

3

paid to the complainant towards compensation and also prayed

for imposition of penalty upon the respondent.

3.Learned Special Judge taking cognizance of the complaint issued

summons to the accused for his appearance before the trial Court on

10-4-2015 and in pursuance thereof, the respondent had appeared

before the trial Court on 1-9-2025 and has furnished bail bond. In

order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has

examined Pradeep Painkra, Assistant Engineer, (PW/1), R.K.

Acharya, Executive Engineer (PW/2), Vinod Mahilange, Assistant

Lineman (PW/3), Shekhar Soni, Assistant Engineer (PW/4), H.K.

Pradhan, Assistant Engineer (PW/5) and exhibited documents from

Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/8 as detailed above, information regrading arrears of

electricity charges payable to the complainant (Ex. P/9) and

information regarding disconnection of electricity meter installed in the

premises of the respondent (Ex. P/10).

4.Respondent accused neither examined any witness nor exhibited any

document, but he was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein

he denied the allegations levelled against him and has taken plea of

false implication, but in reply to question No. 21, he has admitted that

at the time of inspection, Vimla Bai was present who is his wife.

5.Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on

record has recorded its finding in para 20 that the prosecution has not

examined any independent witness and has also not proved that the

accused was in possession of the property or owner of the property.

Learned trial Court has also recorded its finding that the mandatory

provisions under the Act of 2003 have not been followed by the

4

complainant and has recorded its finding that the prosecution is

unable to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable

doubt and acquitted the respondent vide its judgment dated 3-11-

2016. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, present Acquittal

Appeal has been filed by the prosecution.

6.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial

Court has failed to consider the provisions of Act of 2003, particularly

Section 135(2)(a) of the Act of 2003 which provides authorization to

any Officer of Distribution Licensee or supplier to enter, inspect, break

open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to

believe that electricity has been, is being, or is likely to be used

unauthorizedly. Accordingly, it is not required for them to examine any

independent witness. He would further submit that the

respondent/accused has admitted his signature in Panchnama

(Ex.P/3), spot inspection report (Ex.P/4), seizure memo (Ex.P/5), Map

(Ex.P/6), and Ram Bai who is wife of the accused was representative

of the accused and she was present at that time of inspection. He

would further submit that the accused has put his signature from

Ex.P/3 to Ex.P/6 without any objection, therefore, the learned trial

Court has erred in disbelieving the documents which clearly proves

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He would further

submit that learned trial Court erred in holding that the mandatory

provisions of Section 135 of Act of 2003 have not been complied with

by non-preparing the Form No. 3, whereas Form No. 3 is only

required when raid conducted after sunset, as such preparation of

Form No. 3 is not required in the present case as raid has been

5

conducted before sunset.

7.It has been further contended that the learned trial Court has

committed illegality in holding that non-preparation of Form No. 6 is

fatal for the case of prosecution because Form No. 6 is only prepared

when the accused objects after receiving the Form No. 5. In the

instant case, the accused has never objected after receiving the form

No.5 ie., demand of penalty. Thus, on the perverse finding, the

accused has been acquitted. He would further submit that since the

respondent has taken electricity connection in his name bearing

electricity meter service No. 1004140924, as such he is owner of the

said property and no further evidence is required to prove the

ownership or title of the accused over the property where electricity

meter has been installed as it is not a case of title dispute of the suit

property.

8.He would further submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial

Court suffers from perversity or illegality and has prayed for allowing

the appeal. To substantiate his submissions, he has referred to the

judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab State

Electricity Board and another vs. Ashwani Kumar, reported in

(2010) 7 SCC 569, and also referred to judgment of High Court of

Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 2060/2010) and Cri. M. (B) No. 1253 of

2010 in the case of Sushil Sharma vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd

and another, decided on 22-12-2010 and also referred to

Chhattisgarh Electricity Rules, 2006 (in short “Rules of 2006”).

9.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit

that the finding of the learned trial Court that the complainant has not

6

followed the mandatory provisions of Act of 2003 which vitiates the

entire exercise carried out by the complainant, cannot be found faulty.

He would further submit that the prosecution has not examined any

independent witness and non-submission of any independent witness

is also fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, he

would submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court does

not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this

Court in this appeal. He would further submit that even otherwise, it is

well settled position of law that where two views are possible and if

the trial Court has taken one view favouring the accused by acquitting

him then normally the appellate Court should not interfere in the well

reasoned finding recorded by the learned trial Court. He would further

submit that the appellant is unable to point out any patent perversity or

illegality committed by the trial Court while acquitting the respondent,

as such, he would pray for dismissal of the present acquittal appeal.

10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of

the case with utmost circumspection.

11.From the submissions made by the parties before this Court, the point

emerged for determination is whether the acquittal of the accused by

the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003) suffers from

perversity or illegality or liable to be interfered in this acquittal appeal.

12.To appreciate the point emerged for determination and for

consideration of the submissions made by the parties, it is expedient

for this Court to go through the provisions of Sections 126 and 135 of

the Act of 2003 which reads as under:

“Section 126: (Assessment): --- (1) If on an inspection of any

7

place or premises or after inspection of the equipments,

gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after

inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing

officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in

unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to

the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by

such person or by any other person benefited by such use.

(2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon

the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the

place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.

[(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under

sub- section (2) shall be entitled to file objections, if any,

against the provisional assessment before the assessing

officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of

hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment

within thirty days from the date of service of such order of

provisional assessment of the electricity charges payable by

such person.]

(4) Any person served with the order of provisional

assessment, may, accept such assessment and deposit the

assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of

service of such provisional assessment order upon him:

(5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that

unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the

assessment shall be made for the entire period during which

such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if,

however, the period during which such unauthorised use of

electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period

shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately

preceding the date of inspection.]

(6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate

equal to 1[twice] the tariff rates applicable for the relevant

category of services specified in sub-section (5). Explanation.-

For the purposes of this section,- (a) “assessing officer” means

an officer of a State Goverment.

“Section 135. (Theft of Electricity): --- 1[(1) Whoever,

dishonestly, -- (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any

connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or

cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or

supplier as the case may be; or (b) tampers a meter, installs or

uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop

connection or any other device or method which interferes with

accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of

electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby

electricity is stolen or wasted; or (c) damages or destroys an

electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or

allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to

interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity, (d)

uses electricity through a tampered meter; or (e) uses

electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of

8

electricity was authorised, so as to abstract or consume or use

electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term

which may extend to three years or with fine or with both:

Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed,

or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or

attempted use - (i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine

imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times

the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in

the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed

shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of

such theft of electricity; (ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine

imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times

the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in

the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence

shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but

which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six

times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity:

Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent

conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed,

or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or

attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be

debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period

which shall not be less than three months but may extend to

two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of

electricity for that period from any other source or generating

station: Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial

means or means not authorized by the Board or licensee or

supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction,

consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be

presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction,

consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused

by such consumer. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of

this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may,

upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately

disconnect the supply of electricity:

Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as

authorized for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or

any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may

be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall

disconnect the supply line of electricity:

Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as

the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to

the commission of such offence in police station having

jurisdiction within twenty four hours from the time of such

disconnection:

Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may

be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or

electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this

Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the

complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause,

restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of

9

such deposit or payment.]

(2) Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be,]

authorized in this behalf by the State Government may --

(a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or

premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity

2[has been or is being,] used unauthorisedly;

(b) search, seize and remove all such devices,

instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which

has been, or is being, used for unauthorized use of

electricity;

(c) examine or seize any books of account or documents

which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any

proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section

(1) and allow the person from whose custody such books

of of account or documents are seized to make copies

thereof or take extracts therefrom in his presence.

(3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his

behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all

things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared

and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the

list:

Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any

domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out

between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult

male member occupying such premises.

(4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to

searches and seizure under this Act.”

13.From perusal of Sections 126 and 135 of the Act of 2003, it is quite

vivid that Section 126 of the Act deals with assessment and Section

135 of the Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and penalty

that can be imposed for such theft. Section 135 of Act of 2003

squarely falls within the dimensions of criminal jurisprudence and

mens rea is one of the relevant factors for finding a case of theft and it

is applicable to whoever dishonestly does any of the listed actions

defined under this Section so as to obstruct or consume electricity

would be punished with the provisions of the Act of 2003. Dishonesty

is a state of mind which has to be shown to exist before a person can

10

be punished under the provisions of that section. The word “dishonest’

in normal parlance means ‘wanting in honesty’. A person can be said

to have dishonest intention if in taking the property it is his intention to

cause gain, by unlawful means of the property to which the person so

gaining is not legally entitled or to cause loss by wrongful means, of

property to which the person so losing is legally entitled. The word

“Dishonestly” has been defined in Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code

1860. It means whoever does anything with the intention of causing

wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said

to do that thing dishonestly.

14.In the aforesaid light of parameters, now this Court is examining the

evidence led by the prosecution before the learned trial Court to

examine whether the accused has dishonestly committed theft of

electricity.

15.Prosecution star witness namely R.K. Acharya, Executive Engineer

(Ex. P/2) who in examination-in-chief has stated that when they visited

the house of the respondent/accused on 10-3-2014, it was found that

the electricity connection installed in the house of respondent accused

was disconnected and he is using the electricity by direct hooking to

the LT line and when they called the wife of the respondent/accused,

she appeared before them and on being asked about premises of the

house, she stated that the house belongs to the respondent/accused.

Thereafter, he along with team entered into the house of the

respondent wherein it was found that hook was taken to the Switch

Board from L.T. Line and fan, cooler, TV, water-pump, bulb, CFL bulb

were running. Thereafter, he prepared a panchnama (Ex.P/3) wherein

11

he has put his signature and wife of the accused has also put her

signature. He would further state that he has also prepared inspection

report vide Ex. P/4, Seizure Memo (Ex. P/5) and Map (Ex. P/6)

wherein he has put his signature and the representative of respondent

has put her signature. This witness was cross-examined by the

complainant wherein he has admitted that he is not aware when the

electricity connection was disconnected from the house of the

accused. He has also admitted that when the electricity connection is

disconnected and wire is removed from electricity pool. He has also

admitted that he has not mentioned this fact in the report. He has also

admitted that he has seized 10 ft., wire and also admitted that at the

time of inspection, it was found that hook was disconnected from pool.

He has also admitted that he has not examined any independent

witness and denied that he has prepared the documents in the office.

He has also denied that they have put fabricated signature of

representative of the respondent and also admitted that they have not

produced any document regarding title of the property.

16.From the evidence of other witness, it is quite vivid that the member of

the inspection team has supported the case of prosecution and

nothing was brought on record to rebut the said contention made by

them.

17.PW/5 H.K. Pradhan, Assistant Engineer who has supported the case

of the complainant stated that he has prepared the temporary

assessment to the tune of Rs. 46,623/-, sent information to the

accused in Form No.5 (Ex.P/8), information was also sent to the

accused regarding arrears of payment vide Ex.P/9 wherein he has put

12

his signature and information was sent regarding deduction of

electricity vide Ex.P/10. He denied that (Ex.P/9) and (Ex.P/10) were

not served upon the accused and denied false signature on the said

document.

18.From the evidence, it is quite vivid that the inspection and panchnama

were prepared on the spot and it is also not in dispute that regarding

inspection and panchnama no independent witness was examined

and on this count learned trial Court has disbelieved the correctness

of the panchnama. From the evidence brought on record, it is quite

vivid that panchanama and inspection report were prepared by the

official of Electricity Board which is an act done in discharge of their

duties and could not be straightaway disbelieved unless and until

there is definite and cogent material brought on record by the

defense to arrive that such a finding placed on record by the

complainant is false and fabricated one. In the present case, the

respondent has not led any evidence to rebut the correctness or

genuineness of the panchnama of inspection report. On the contrary,

in the cross-examination R.K. Acharya, Executive Engineer (PW/2)

has categorically stated that he has prepared panchnama on the spot

wherein the representative of respondent accused has put her

signature. Thus, the finding of the learned trial Court that in absence

of any independent witness, panchnama or inspection cannot be

relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused suffers from perversity or

illegality.

19.Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab State Electricity Board

and another vs. Ashwani Kumar, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 569 has

13

examined the validity of report prepared by the authority in discharge

of duty and held that unless contrary is proved by cogent evidence

presumption will lie in favour of such act or document and not against

them as onus lies upon person objective to show while leading proper

and cogent evidence that the said report is not proper. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 18, 21 and 22 as under:

“18. The report prepared by the officers of the Electricity

Board is an act done in discharge of their duties and could not

be straight away reflected or disbelieved unless and until

there was definite and cogent material on record to arrive at

such a finding. It is not disputed before us that if two

connections are operating in the same premises, in that

event, the concept of clubbing and consequential charges

and penalty would be attracted. That being so, and

particularly, where a National Commission has not adverted to

some discussion on the points raised in the appeal, the policy

of the Electricity Board and the regulations cannot be

rendered otiose.

21. The inspection report is a document prepared in exercise

of its official duties by the officers of the Corporation. Once an

act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in

favour of such act or document and not against the same.

Thus, there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by

leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared

by the officers was not correct.

22. As already noticed, no objections were filed to the said

report except some protest, that too, without stating as to

what was the specific protest about, whether the facts

recorded in the report were factually incorrect or that the

report was received under protest. As is apparent from the

reports on record, it bears two signatures of the

consumer/consumer's representatives, one with regard to the

preparation of report and other with regard to receiving the

copy of the report. The words `under protest' have been

recorded at the bottom of the report. This, itself indicates the

ambiguity in the protest raised by the consumers.”

20.Thus, learned trial Court should have drawn the presumption of

correctness of the panchnama in absence of producing the cogent

evidence or rebuttal by the accused to disprove the genuineness and

correctness of the panchnama. As it is well settled position of law that

14

the facts required to form the basis of a presumption of law exist, no

discretion is left with the court but to draw the statutory conclusion, but

this does not preclude the person against whom the presumption is

drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. Therefore, it is

incumbent upon the respondent to rebut the conclusively established

about the fact of preparation of panchnama and the inspection report,

but no such evidence was led by the respondent to believe the

defence of the respondent that the panchnama was prepared not at

the spot or it is a false one. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has

examined the issue of presumption under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 in case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath

Banerjee, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 16 and has held in para 22 and

38 as under:

“22. Because both Sections 138 and 139 require that the

Court "shall presume" the liability of the drawer of the cheques

for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, as noted in

State of Madras vs. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer AIR 1958 SC 61, it is

obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case

where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had

been established. "It introduces an exception to the general

rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the

onus on to the accused" (ibid). Such a presumption is a

presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of

fact which describes provisions by which the court "may

presume" a certain state of affairs. Presumptions are rules of

evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of

innocence, because by the latter all that is meant is that the

prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused

beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution

may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or

fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the

reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed

fact.

38. The burden was on the appellant to disapprove the

presumptions under Ss. 138 and 139 a burden which he failed

to discharge at all. The averment in the written statement of

the appellant was not enough. Incidentally, the defence in the

written statement that the four cheques were given for

intended transactions was not the answer given by the

15

Appellant to the notice under Section 138. Then he had said

that the cheques were given to assist the Bank for

restructuring (Ex.H). It was necessary for the appellant at least

to show on the basis of acceptable evidence either that his

explanation in the written statement was so probable that a

prudent man ought to accept it or to establish that the effect of

the material brought on the record, in its totality, rendered the

existence of the fact presumed, improbable. (Vide Trilok

Chand Jain Vs. State of Delhi 1975 (4) SCC 761 ). The

appellant has done neither. In the absence of any such proof

the presumptions under Sections 138 and 139 must prevail.”

21.From the aforesaid provisions of law considering the evidence and

material on record, it is quite vivid that neither the respondent has led

any evidence to rebut the contention of panchnama nor led any

evidence to substantiate his contention that he has not committed any

offence of theft of electricity, though the prosecution has proved its

case that there was theft of electricity, as such it was incumbent upon

the respondent to rebut the said presumption and in absence of any

rebuttal, the finding of the learned trial Court that due to non-

examination of independent witnesses, the entire panchnama and

inspection report are illegal, suffers from perversity and illegality

which deserves to be set aside by this Court and accordingly it is set

aside.

22.Further finding assigned by the learned trial Court that mandatory

provisions of the Act 2003 as well as the provisions of Section 126

and Rule 7 framed under the Rules of 2006 have not been followed by

the complainant, therefore, the complainant is unable to proved

beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed theft of

electricity is illegal, therefore, it deserves to be set aside. As Sections

135 and 126 of the Act of 2003 are applicable in different spheres as

Section 126 of the Act of 2003 provides for assessment of dues

16

whereas Section 135 of the Act of 2003 deals with the offence of theft

of electricity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of West Bengal

State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., vs. Orion Metal Pvt.

Ltd., (Civil Appeal No. 6547 of 2019, decided on 21-8-2019),

reported in AIR Online 2019 SC 982, has examined the provisions of

Section 126 and 135 of the Act of 2003 and has held that both

provisions work in different fields. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para

14 has held as under.

“14. We also do not find any valid reason for making a

distinction as made by the High Court in applying Section 126

of the Act. From the scheme of the Act, it appears that after

inspection team notices unauthorized use of energy by

tampering the meter, the authorities can disconnect the power

supply immediately and make immediate assessment for loss

of energy, by invoking power under Section 126(1) of the Act.

The term “unauthorized use of energy” is of wide connotation.

There may be cases of unauthorized use of energy, not

amounting to theft, which are cases viz. exceeding the

sanctioned load or using the electricity in the premises where

its use is not authorized etc. But at the same time, when there

is an allegation of unauthorized use of energy by tampering

the meter, such cases of unauthorized use of energy include

‘theft’ as defined under Section 135 of the Act. The power

conferred on authorities for making assessment under Section

126(1) of the Act and power to determine civil liability under

Section 154(5) of the Act, cannot be said to be parallel to each

other. In this regard, we are of the view that the High Court has

committed an error in recording a finding, that both

proceedings cannot operate parallelly. In a given case where

there is no theft of energy, amounting to unauthorized use of

energy, in such cases no complaint of theft can be lodged as

contemplated under Section 135 of the Act. In such cases for

loss of energy, on account of unauthorized use of energy not

amounting to theft, it is always open for the authorities to

assess the loss of energy by resorting to power under Section

126(1) of the Act. In cases where allegation is of unauthorized

use of energy amounting to theft, in such cases, apart from

assessing the proceedings under Section 126(1) of the Act, a

complaint also can be lodged alleging theft of energy as

defined under Section 135(1) of the Act. In such cases, the

Special Court is empowered to determine civil liability under

Section 154(5) of the Act. On such determination of civil

liability by the Special Court, the excess amount, if any,

deposited by the petitioner, is to be refunded to the consumer.

17

It is a settled principle that to prove the guilt of the accused in

a criminal proceeding, authorities have to prove the case

beyond reasonable doubt and the element of mens rea is also

to be established. On the other hand, such a strict proof is not

necessary for assessing the liability under Section 126(1) of

the Act.”

23.Thus, presuming (but not holding) that there is non-compliance of

Rule 7 of the Rules of 2006, it does not vitiate the proceeding

conducted under Section 135 of the Act of 2003 as the Rule 7 of the

Rules of 2006 deals with assessment of dues on inspection of the

premises, if any consumer or person is found to have indulged in

unauthorized use of electricity, the assessing officer, after taking into

consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, shall make a

provisional assessment of the charge payable by the owner or

occupier of the premises who is benefited by indulging in unauthorized

use of energy or may have given benefit to any other person whereas

Section 135 of the Act of 2003 provides panel provision for

commission of offence of theft of electricity, thus, the finding of learned

trial Court in paragraph 17 of its judgment is illegal and it is quashed.

24.The finding of the learned trial Court at paragraph 18 that no revenue

document regarding title of the respondent on the premises was not

placed on record and no one has seen that the respondent is getting

electricity after hooking with the L.T. lines and accordingly, it has

acquitted the accused, is also perverse, contrary to the provisions of

law. The learned trial Court should have considered that as per

provisions of Section 2(51) of the Act of 2003 the premise has been

defined according to which any land, building or structure and

consumer has been defined in Section 2(15) of the Act of 2003. As

per the definition, the consumer means any person who is supplied

18

with the electricity for his own use by licensee or the government or by

any other person engaged in supply of electricity to the public under

this Act or any other law for the time being enforce and includes any

person whose premises are for the time being connected for the

purposes of receiving electricity with the works of the licensee, the

Government or such other person as case may be.

25.From perusal of aforesaid definitions, it is quite vivid that the electricity

should have been supplied by the licensee on the premises or person

who will be called as consumer. The appellant has exhibited the notice

(Ex. P/2) dated 03-02-2014 disconnecting the electricity due to non-

payment of bill which was issued in the name of respondent. The

respondent has neither disputed about issuance of notice dated 03-

02-2014 by the appellant nor regarding service connection number

mentioned in the notice. These facts are sufficient to hold that the

respondent is consumer of the electricity and since it is not in dispute

pertaining to title of the suit property, as such, it was not required for

the complainant to place on record the revenue records of the

premises and the learned trial Court should have drawn inference that

the meter was installed in the premises of the respondent. Thus, it has

committed illegality in recording the finding that in absence of any

revenue record produced by the complainant, it cannot be held that

the respondent is the owner of the premises.

26.The further submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the

view taken by the learned trial Court is not based on perversity or

illegality and in view of well settled position of law that unless and until

there is a cogent apparent mistake while acquitting the accused, then

19

only this Court can interfere in the order of acquittal. As such, the

appeal is liable to be dismissed by this Court, is being considered.

27.From the aforesaid findings recorded by this Court in foregoing

paragraphs, it is quite vivid that the learned trial Court while acquitting

the accused has not considered the provisions of the Act 2003 and

the rules made under Rules of 2006 as well as committed illegality in

not believing the panchnama or inspection report in absence of any

cogent evidence or material placed on record by the respondent and

has recorded its finding of acquittal which is perverse and contrary to

the law. Thus, the learned trial Court committed illegality in applying

the law, recorded patent perversity about ignoring the panchnama and

inspection report, as such, no two reasonable views are possible and

only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from

the evidence available on record, therefore, this Court can very well

interfere in the findings of the trial Court acquitting the accused by

reversing the findings to conviction of the accused. Thus, submission

made by the learned counsel for the appellant that two views can be

taken then view which is more favourable to the accused should be

considered by the Court and should not interfere in the finding of the

acquittal deserves to be rejected, and accordingly it is rejected.

28.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Babu Sahebagouda

Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka reported in 2024 (8)

SCC 149 has held in which circumstances the findings can be

reversed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 41 and 42 has

held as under:

“41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of

20

interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment

of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused

has to be exercised within the four corners of the following

principles:-

41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent

perversity;

41.2 That the same is based on a misreading/omission to

consider material evidence on record;

41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the

view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from

the evidence available on record.

42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment

of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the

above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of

acquittal rendered by the trial Court.”

29.Therefore, this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section

386 of Cr.P.C. (Section 427 in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita (BNSS)) can very well interfere in the findings recorded by the

trial Court and can reverse such findings by convicting the accused for

the commission of offence under Section 135 of the Act of 2003.

30.Accordingly, this acquittal appeal deserves to be allowed and it is

hereby allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside. Since this Court

is setting aside the order of acquittal, therefore, the matter has to be

listed for hearing of the appellant on the quantum of sentence to be

imposed upon the appellant on 17.06.2026 as per compliance of

Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C./258(2) of BNSS.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

JUDGE

Raju