Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Beed, acquitting the respondent (Gulam Sultan Faruqi) of offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The prosecution case was that on 05/07/2006, the Flying Squad of MSEDCL inspected the respondent's flour mill and found the meter seals broken. On applying 'Accucheck', the meter was found running slow by about 72%. The seals were tampered. A panchanama was drawn, the meter was replaced and attached. The respondent was asked to attend the testing unit on 06/07/2006. He attended, and in his presence, the seal was opened and the meter tested. The testing showed the meter was running slow by more than 88%, and internal examination revealed tampering of internal mechanism. Photographs were taken. The trial court acquitted the respondent. The High Court, hearing the appeal, noted that the trial court's reasoning was not sound. The court observed that the evidence of tampering and slow running was sufficient to establish dishonest abstraction of energy. The court held that the acquittal was not justified and set it aside. The respondent was convicted under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The court directed the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The court also directed the trial court to take steps to recover the amount of loss caused to the appellant as per Section 135(1)(b) of the Act.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Theft of Electricity - Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003 - Tampering of Meter - The prosecution case was that the respondent's meter seals were broken and the meter was running slow by 72% on inspection and 88% on testing, indicating tampering. The trial court acquitted on ground that the meter was not tested in accordance with rules. Held that the evidence of tampering and slow running was sufficient to establish dishonest abstraction of energy, and the acquittal was set aside. (Paras 1-6) B) Electricity Law - Theft of Electricity - Section 138 Electricity Act, 2003 - Tampering of Meter - The respondent was also charged under Section 138 for tampering of meter. The court found that the internal mechanism was tampered and seals were broken. Held that the offence under Section 138 was made out. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was justified in light of evidence showing tampered seals and slow running of the meter.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed in Special [MSEB] Case No. 82 of 2006 is set aside. The respondent is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The trial court is directed to take steps to recover the amount of loss caused to the appellant as per Section 135(1)(b) of the Act.
Law Points
- Electricity theft
- tampering of meter
- slow running of meter
- dishonest abstraction of energy
- burden of proof on consumer
- presumption under Section 135
- strict liability
