### Acquittal Under Section 135 Does Not Bar Assessment for Unauthorized Use of Electricity Under Section 126

The petitioner, owner of an industrial unit with a sanctioned load of 25 HP, alleged that his electricity meter was stolen on 16.11.2004, for which a police complaint was filed.

On 18.11.2004, respondents conducted a surprise inspection and, finding no meter, issued a provisional assessment of Rs. 1,81,453/- for unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Simultaneously, the petitioner was prosecuted for criminal theft under Section 135 of the Act but was acquitted by a Special Sessions Court on 14.07.2006.

The petitioner challenged the assessment and the appellate order [Annexure P/2], arguing that his acquittal in the criminal case should nullify the civil assessment under Section 126.

1. Whether an acquittal in criminal proceedings under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, automatically nullifies an assessment for "unauthorized use of electricity" under Section 126 of the same Act.

2. Whether the lack of an electricity meter during an inspection constitutes "unauthorized use of electricity" regardless of a claim of theft of the meter.

The Court applied Section 126 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in *West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Comp. Ltd v. Orion Metal Pvt. Ltd*, which established that "unauthorized use" under Section 126 is a broader term than "theft" under Section 135; the two proceedings are independent and can operate parallelly.

It further cited *Castron Technologies Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation*, affirming that acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent the authority from initiating or maintaining proceedings for unauthorized use under Section 126.

The rule dictates that criminal liability requires "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and *mens rea*, whereas Section 126 assessment does not require such strict proof.

The Court reasoned that Section 126 and Section 135 serve distinct purposes: one addresses civil liability for energy loss, while the other addresses criminal culpability.

The Court found that the petitioner’s establishment was consuming electricity without a meter on the date of inspection, which squarely falls within the definition of "unauthorized use of electricity".

The Court dismissed the petitioner's defense regarding the stolen meter, noting he failed to immediately inform the electricity board, which rendered his *bona fides* doubtful.

Consequently, the Court held that the acquittal in the criminal trial (Section 135) was irrelevant to the industrial assessment (Section 126) because the standards of proof differ and the statutory schemes are not interlinked.

The quantum of assessment was deemed valid as it followed statutory instructions and provided credit for sums already paid.

The Court affirmed that the inspection revealed a clear case of unauthorized use.

The prayer to quash the provisional bill and appellate order was rejected, and the respondents’ actions were found to be legally sustainable.