Acquittal for electricity theft does not bar assessment of unauthorised use under Section 126.

The petitioner’s electricity supply was disconnected on the allegation that the meter had been bypassed and electricity had been unauthorisedly consumed.

The disputed connection stood in the name of the petitioner’s wife and was allegedly used for M/s Nandini Drinking Water, under Meter No. LANDIS409LNG131317.

The petitioner was prosecuted for electricity theft in Special Electricity Case No. 24/2017 and was acquitted by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Rajnandgaon, on 10 February 2020, on the ground that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The petitioner thereafter sought restoration/provision of electricity connection to his residence and refund of ₹95,000 deposited towards the electricity demand.

His representation was forwarded by the Superintending Engineer to the Junior Engineer, but no decision was taken. He consequently invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Whether the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal prosecution for electricity theft barred the respondents from assessing or recovering liability for unauthorised use or consumption of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interference with the electricity demand, refund of the deposited amount of ₹95,000, and restoration/provision of electricity connection.

The Court applied the distinction under the Electricity Act, 2003 between unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126, which gives rise to an assessment and civil liability, and theft of electricity under Section 135, which attracts criminal liability.

An acquittal under Section 135, based on failure to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt, does not by itself extinguish or bar a separate assessment or recovery for unauthorised use under Section 126.

The Court relied on West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Orion Metal Private Limited, (2020) 18 SCC 588, which recognises that proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 operate in distinct fields.

The criminal court had only determined that the allegation of theft was not proved to the criminal standard of proof; it had not adjudicated or extinguished any distinct civil liability for unauthorised consumption or use of electricity.

Applying the principle in Orion Metal, the High Court held that the respondents remained competent to assess and recover the amount payable under Section 126 notwithstanding the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case.

Since the Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the demand and noted that the demanded amount had already been deposited, it declined to order refund or grant further interference in the matter.

Finding no sufficient ground to interfere with the demand, the Court dismissed the writ petition, thereby declining the requested restoration/provision of connection and refund of ₹95,000.

No order as to costs was made.