Acquittal in electricity theft prosecution upheld where evidence failed to credibly connect accused to offence.

On 4 March 2008, officers of the Gujarat/Vadodara electricity distribution authorities inspected the electricity connection associated with the accused’s father at Village Padla, Taluka Sami, District Patan.

The prosecution alleged that the accused had illegally connected a neutral wire and used electricity through artificial means, consuming approximately 915 watts, thereby committing theft of electricity under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

A complaint was registered on 12 March 2008 as II-C.R. No. 214 of 2008, followed by investigation and filing of a chargesheet.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses and produced ten documents.

The trial court acquitted the accused in Special (Electricity) Case No. 13 of 2008 by judgment dated 15 October 2012.

The State challenged the acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003?

Whether the trial court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution?

Whether the acquittal suffered from any illegality, irregularity, perversity, or other infirmity warranting appellate interference?

The Court applied Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which criminalises dishonest abstraction, consumption, or use of electricity through artificial means or unauthorised arrangements; the prosecution was required to establish the charge through cogent and material evidence.

The appeal against acquittal was governed by Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

[object Object]

[object Object]

The Court found that the prosecution evidence did not reliably connect the accused with dishonest abstraction of electricity.

Although the inspection team alleged the use of cables and other apparatus, the Investigating Officer admitted that no seizure panchnama was prepared; the alleged electrical articles were neither collected during investigation, produced before the trial court, nor sent for forensic examination.

The testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 regarding the presence of a mob, assault, threats, and the accused’s alleged display of a firearm was materially inconsistent and was not supported by the FIR, the Investigating Officer, or the police personnel allegedly present during inspection.

The absence of any separate criminal-intimidation complaint further weakened that version.

In light of these evidentiary deficiencies and the heightened presumption in favour of an accused already acquitted, the trial court’s view was held to be a reasonable one and not perverse or manifestly illegal.

It held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and that the trial court had committed no error, illegality, perversity, or infirmity in recording the acquittal.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the trial court’s judgment of acquittal dated 15 October 2012 was confirmed, the accused’s bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.