Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhanudas Supadu Wani, was convicted by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Special Case No. 11 of 2005 for theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The prosecution alleged that on 15th September 2004, a raiding party from the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) visited the appellant's house and found that the electricity meter was tampered with by inserting a loop wire, and that the appellant was using electricity for a non-agricultural purpose (running a flour mill) without a proper connection. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the panch witnesses, who were supposed to be independent, did not support the prosecution version. The evidence of the raiding party was inconsistent regarding the exact nature of the tampering. The court held that the mere presence of a loop wire or an unauthorized connection does not automatically lead to the inference that the accused was responsible for the theft. The prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that the appellant had tampered with the meter or that he was using electricity for a non-agricultural purpose. The court also observed that the presumption under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, does not shift the entire burden of proof on the accused. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Electricity Theft - Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003 - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed theft of electricity by tampering with the meter or by direct abstraction. Mere presence of a loop wire or unauthorized connection is not sufficient to convict unless it is shown that the accused was responsible for such tampering. Held that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had tampered with the meter or that the electricity was being used for a non-agricultural purpose. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Circumstantial Evidence - In cases of theft of electricity, the prosecution must lead evidence to show that the accused was directly involved in the theft. The presumption under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, does not shift the burden of proof entirely on the accused. Held that the evidence of the raiding party was inconsistent and the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused was guilty of theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Electricity theft
- burden of proof
- circumstantial evidence
- presumption under Section 135 of Electricity Act
- 2003
- requirement of direct evidence of tampering
