Electricity-theft prosecution fails absent Section 151 authorization and credible evidence connecting the accused to the offence.

On 27 January 2006, officers of UGVCL allegedly found the respondent using a direct 7.5 HP motor connected to the company’s LT line from the Mazum riverbed for irrigation, without authorisation, resulting in alleged theft of electricity valued at ₹1,83,304.88.

A complaint was submitted to the GEB Police Station and an FIR was registered as C.R. No. II-99/2006; the case was subsequently committed to the Special Court and registered as Special (Electricity) Case No. 47 of 2009.

The prosecution examined six witnesses and produced nine documents, while the defence examined one witness and produced four documents.

After recording the respondent’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court acquitted him of the offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The State preferred the present appeal against acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code.

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

2. Whether the trial court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.

3. Whether the impugned judgment of 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 penalises dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of electricity, and Section 151 of the Act concerning the competence and authorisation required for lodging a complaint or initiating prosecution.

The appeal against acquittal was considered under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Relying on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, as reaffirmed in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169, the court held that although an appellate court may fully reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed, absent perversity or manifest illegality.

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the respondent’s connection with the alleged electricity theft beyond reasonable doubt.

The complaint was submitted on 28 January 2006, but the FIR was registered only on 30 January 2006, with an unexplained delay of five days.

The complainant admitted that he had no specific authorisation under Section 151 of the Electricity Act, that no panchnama was prepared in the presence of panch witnesses, and that no alleged motor, wire, or other material was recovered or produced before the investigating officer or trial court.

The investigation also did not establish the respondent’s ownership or occupation of the agricultural land.

Revenue evidence showed that seven or eight persons were recorded as occupants or co-sharers, while only the respondent was prosecuted.

In these circumstances, the inspection report and testimony did not reliably prove that the respondent was the person who operated the motor or abstracted electricity.

Since the trial court’s view was a reasonable one based on evidentiary deficiencies, and no perversity or manifest error was demonstrated, the enhanced protection applicable to an acquittal required dismissal of the State’s appeal.

It found no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the trial court’s judgment of acquittal and dismissed the appeal.

The acquittal was confirmed, the respondent’s bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.