Acquittal upheld where electricity-theft prosecution failed to establish accused’s connection and comply with Section 151.

On 1 March 2006, officers of UGVCL allegedly inspected agricultural land at Village Vansali, Taluka Bhiloda, and found illegal abstraction of electricity through a cable and other apparatus to operate a submersible motor.

A supplementary bill of ₹61,100 was issued to the respondent, which remained unpaid. A complaint was thereafter lodged, investigation conducted, and a charge-sheet filed for an offence under Section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The trial Court examined five prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence, but acquitted the accused after finding that the prosecution had failed to establish his connection with the alleged theft and had not proved the essential facts beyond reasonable doubt.

The State preferred the present appeal against acquittal.

Whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent for the alleged 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 impugned judgment of acquittal suffered from illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting appellate interference.

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 criminalises theft of electricity, including dishonest abstraction or use of electricity through unauthorised means.

Section 151 requires cognizance of an offence under the Act to be based on a written complaint by the Appropriate Government, authorised officer, licensee, generating company, or other specified authority; the proviso also permits cognizance on a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court relied on State of Gujarat v. Mohamad Nathabhai Sumara regarding compliance with Section 151.

The Court relied on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka for the principles governing appeals against acquittal: an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but the accused enjoys a reinforced or double presumption of innocence, and an acquittal should not be disturbed where two reasonable views are possible.

The Court also applied the principle that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt through reliable and legally admissible evidence.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to connect the respondent with the alleged electricity theft.

The complainant had not personally inspected the site and admitted that the respondent was neither present nor a signatory to the relevant document; the person who signed it was not proved to be the respondent’s legal representative.

Although the prosecution referred to seized cables and apparatus, the seizure panchnama was not produced before the Investigating Officer or the trial Court.

The evidence further showed that no proper panchnama had been drawn, statements of nearby landowners had not been recorded, and the respondent was absent during inspection.

The prosecution also failed to establish that the respondent was the exclusive owner or possessor of the land, as the revenue records disclosed seventeen other co-owners.

The Investigating Officer and material panch witnesses were not examined, and the complaint did not specify the inspection date, time, or persons present.

These deficiencies also raised doubt regarding the complainant’s authority under Section 151 of the Act.

In light of these evidentiary failures and the heightened standard applicable to an appeal against acquittal, the High Court found no perversity or manifest illegality in the trial Court’s reasoning.

It held that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent committed theft of electricity under Section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and that the trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and acquitted him.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the order of acquittal dated 16 June 2012 was confirmed, the bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial Court.