An electricity-theft conviction cannot stand without evidence linking the accused to the premises where the theft occurred.

The prosecution alleged that on 24 March 2009, BESCOM Vigilance officials found an unauthorised electrical connection supplying a house under construction in Ujjini Village and alleged theft of 1½ kW of electricity.

A charge sheet was filed, and the appellant was tried and convicted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The trial court imposed a fine of ₹1,22,472.

In his appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the appellant argued, among other things, that the prosecution had not established that the house belonged to him and had not examined the mahazar witnesses.

The prosecution case was supported by three witnesses; five documents and one material object were marked.

Whether the appellant had established grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of conviction and sentence

Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction where the prosecution had not produced material establishing the appellant’s ownership of the house under construction

The appeal was brought under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for an appeal against conviction.

The charge and conviction were under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, concerning theft of electricity.

The Court applied the requirement that a conviction must be supported by cogent, convincing, and legally acceptable evidence; it cited no precedent.

The Court found that the investigating officer had produced no document showing that the appellant owned the house where the alleged unauthorised connection was found, and had not explained the omission.

It also noted the appellant’s contention that the mahazar witnesses were not examined.

Concluding that the record lacked cogent and legally acceptable evidence to support the conviction, the Court held that the trial court’s decision could not stand.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

It directed the trial court to refund any fine deposited and ordered cancellation of the appellant’s bail bond.