Acquittal Confirmed Where Prosecution Fails to Prove Authorization, Timely FIR, or Expert Evidence of Meter Tampering

The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent-accused from charges under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003

The prosecution alleged that on June 6, 2009, a raiding party inspected the respondent’s ice candy factory and found a direct illegal connection from a low transmission line using a cable, bypassing the meter

A supplementary bill of ₹1,76,028.48 was issued, which remained unpaid

The FIR was lodged on August 2, 2009, nearly two months after the inspection

The Trial Court acquitted the accused on October 11, 2012, citing lack of evidence and procedural lapses

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of dishonest abstraction of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 beyond a reasonable doubt

2. Whether the procedural irregularities, including the non-production of muddamal (seized property) and the delay in filing the FIR, vitiated the prosecution's case

3. Whether there is any manifest illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal that warrants interference by the Appellate Court

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which defines theft of electricity and prescribes penalties

Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the power of police to seize property

Principles from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence and that findings should not be disturbed if two reasonable conclusions are possible

Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar regarding the necessity of "weighty grounds" to reverse an acquittal

The High Court observed that while the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) claimed theft occurred, their testimony was undermined by critical omissions.

The authorization for PW-1 to lodge the FIR was never produced

Photographs taken during the raid were withheld from the court

Crucially, the Investigating Officer (PW-4) admitted that no seized material (muddamal), such as the cables or the allegedly tampered meter, was produced before the Trial Court

No expert laboratory report was obtained to confirm meter tampering

There was also an unexplained two-month delay in filing the FIR, which is contrary to the statutory proviso of Section 135 requiring a complaint within 24 hours of disconnection

The court found that these lapses created a vacuum of evidence, making the Trial Court's view a reasonable one

The appeal was dismissed, the judgment of acquittal dated October 11, 2012, was confirmed, and the respondent's bail bond was cancelled