CRA/294/2008 of SAHAS RAM Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 13 July 2026

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05/03/2008 passed in Criminal Electricity Case No.09/2006, whereby, the learned Special Judge, Janjgir has convicted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135-A of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced him to R.I. for 2 years with fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, failing which, to further undergo for R.I. for 6 months.

2. The appellant is charged for the offence mentioned herein-above based upon the complaint (Ex.P/3) lodged by the Junior Engineer of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, namely, P.K. Sharma, wherein, it was alleged that during the inspection made on 23/11/2005 at 05:00 P.M. in presence of Bhuneshwar and Hariram along with his line man, namely, M.L. Sahu and the helper- Ratiram Sahu, the appellant, a resident of village- Ranpota, was found in running the Holler and Floor Mill of 10 H.P. while taking illegal connection from the electric pole and has consumed electricity unauthorisedly to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Based upon the alleged allegation, an FIR (Ex.P/4) was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, read with Section 135-A of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and, during the investigation, 25 ft. of electric wire was found to be connected with the electric pole for doing the alleged act and, after the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti, for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC read with Section 135-A of the Act and, the matter was, thereafter, committed to the Special Judge (under the Electricity Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, where he was charged for the offence punishable under Section 135-A of the Act, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 06 witnesses and exhibited 09 documents, while 02 witnesses was examined by the appellant in his defence.

4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was running the Holler and Floor Mill while consuming the electricity unauthorisedly without obtaining any license and, accordingly, he has been convicted under

Section 135-A of the Act and sentenced, as mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred.

5. Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 135-A of the Act is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the parties has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in convicting him as such. It is contended further that 25 ft. electric wire, alleged to have been used for illegal connection, was not recovered from the appellant at the time of the inspection, yet he has been held guilty for the alleged offence. Further of his contention is that without assessing the consumption of electricity unauthorisedly by the appellant as required under Section 126 of the Act, the trial Court has erred in convicting him as such. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of West Bengal state Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Others v. Orion Metal Private Limited and Another, reported in (2020) 18 SCC 588.

6. On the other hand, Ms. K. Radhika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record.

8. Ex. P/1 is the Spot Inspection Panchnama conducted by Mr. P.K. Sharma, the Junior Engineer of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Malkharoda/Chhapora, wherein, 10 H.P. motor was being used while taking electric connection from the electric pole for running the Holler and Floor Mill and, the 10 H.P. Motor of Kirloskar Company, Holler, Chakki and Bentex Starter was seized vide Japtinama (Ex.P/2) dated 23/11/2005, but Ratiram (PW-2) and Hariram (PW-4) in whose presence, the alleged articles were shown to be seized have, however, stated that the signatures of their were taken when the alleged documents (Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2) were blank and, deposed further that the alleged articles were not recovered in their presence. The alleged proceedings were, thus, not found to be established in view of their testimonies.

9. That apart, 25 ft. wire alleged to have been used for consuming electricity unauthorisedly for running the alleged Holler and Floor Mill of 10 H.P. was not found to be recovered from the appellant on the date of the inspection held on 23/11/2005, nor any assessment pertaining to unauthorised use of electricity to the extent of Rs.25,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer during the course of alleged inspection made on 23/11/2005 under Section 126 of the Act, in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the said matter of West Bengal state Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Others v. Orion Metal Private Limited and Another (Supra), as in the said matter, while interpreting the provisions prescribed under Sections 126, 135 and 154(5), it was held at paragraphs 12, 13 and 15 as under:- “12. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions and on giving a conjoint reading of the same, it appears to us that after an inspection of any place or any premises of any consumer, when the assessing officer comes to a conclusion that the consumer is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity, the provisional assessment to the best of his judgment is to be made in accordance with Section 126(1) of the Act and such provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation of the premises. After giving an opportunity to file objections to the provisional assessment, the assessing officer is empowered to pass a final order of the assessment assessing the loss of energy, on account of unauthorised use of energy. The unauthorised use of electricity is defined under Section 126(6)(b) of the Act. It is clear from the aforesaid definition that unauthorised use of electricity means, the usage of electricity by any artificial means or by a means not authorised by the person or authority or licensee concerned; or through a tampered meter; or for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised.

13. It is clear from the reading of Section 126(6)(b)(iii) of the Act that instances of use of energy through a tampered meter is included in the definition of unauthorised use of electricity. If that is so, there is no reason, for excluding the power of the authorities for making assessment under Section 126(1) of the Act to assess the loss of energy, where electricity is used through a tampered meter. All instances of unauthorised use of energy may not amount to theft of electricity within the meaning of Section 135 of the Act, but at the same time, the theft of electricity which is covered by Section 135 of the Act, will fall within the definition of unauthorised use of electricity………………………...Thus, it is clear that the authorities under the Act are empowered to make a provisional and final assessment by invoking power under Section 126(1) of the Act, even in cases where electricity is unauthorisedly used by way of theft……………………………. Merely because the Special Court is empowered to determine civil liability under Section 154(5) of the Act, in cases where a complaint is lodged, it cannot be said that there is no power conferred on authorities to make provisional assessment/final assessment under Section 126 of the Act.

15. …………………………… From the scheme of the Act, it appears that after inspection team notices unauthorised 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 "unauthorised use of energy" is of wide connotation. There may be cases of unauthorised 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 authorised, etc. But at the same time, when there is an allegation of unauthorised use of energy by tampering the meter, such cases of unauthorised 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 unauthorised 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 unauthorised 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 unauthorised 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. 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………………………...”

10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand and in absence of recovery of alleged 25 ft. wire from the appellant, alleged to have been used illegally by the appellant on the date of the inspection for running the Holler and Floor Mill of 10 H.P., coupled with non-assessment of consumption of electricity unauthorisedly to the tune of Rs.25,000/- as required under Section 126 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that the alleged offence was committed by the appellant.

11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 05/03/2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Janjgir in Criminal Electricity Case No.09/2006 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135-A of the Electricity Act, 2003 is, hereby, set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the aforesaid charges. His bail bonds/sureties stand discharged. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Prashant