As per case facts, the accused was convicted for direct electricity theft, found to be supplying power to many residential units by illegally tapping from supply boxes. A substantial theft ... bill was issued, leading to a criminal complaint. The accused appealed the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to examine recipients, establish possession of the premises, and that there was a significant delay in filing the complaint. The question arose whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were sustainable. Finally, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. It held that the prosecution successfully proved the theft using evidence, and strict proof of ownership was not mandatory. The delay was adequately explained, and the accused did not successfully rebut the legal presumption of theft.