Acquittal Upheld Where Electricity Theft Charge Lacks Independent Corroboration and Proof of Premises Ownership

On November 20, 2015, an inspection team from the appellant electricity company conducted a search at House No. 170, Tehsil Huzur, Bhopal, alleging that the Respondent (Rijwan) was stealing electricity by bypassing the meter.

The company assessed damages and civil liability totaling ₹15,03,626 and filed a complaint under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The trial court (Special Judge, Electricity Act) acquitted the respondent on August 26, 2022, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant challenged this acquittal, arguing that the testimonies of the departmental witnesses and the seizure of materials (cables) were sufficient for conviction.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the accused as the person in possession/control of the premises and the commission of theft beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the findings of the trial court were perverse or illegal, warranting interference by the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.

Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, regarding the unauthorized use of electricity.

The precedent of Bapu Puri v. M.P. Electricity Distribution Company (2003 (2) JLJ 168) regarding the standard of proof in electricity theft cases.

Principles from State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu (2016) and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023), establishing that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that suspicion cannot replace proof.

The doctrine in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024) regarding the limitations of reversing an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is legally implausible or perverse.

The key witness (PW-1) admitted the accused was not present during the inspection and failed to produce the original panchnama, relying instead on a carbon copy.

The team failed to collect any documentary evidence of title or possession linking the accused to the premises, admitting the location was identified merely by "observing it from the road".

Although PW-2 and PW-4 claimed machines were run through theft, no such machines or wires (except one cable) were seized as evidence.

Despite the presence of independent persons at the spot, only departmental witnesses were examined, and their testimonies contained contradictions regarding where the panchnama was actually signed.

Applying the 'two views' doctrine, the trial court's decision to grant the benefit of doubt was a legally plausible view.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal, whereby the respondent remains acquitted of the charges under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003.