Failure to prove ownership and seize equipment invalidates acquittal challenge in electricity theft prosecution.

The appellant/complainant, a Junior Engineer, alleged that during an inspection on July 16, 2015, the respondent was found stealing electricity via a "katiya" connection to run a 3 H.P. flour mill motor.

A panchnama and site map were prepared, and a provisional assessment of Rs. 28,753/- was issued.

The respondent was charged under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

After trial, the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Bijawar, acquitted the respondent on July 22, 2022.

The appellant filed an application seeking leave to appeal against this acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the accused and his possession of the premises where the alleged theft occurred beyond a reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or suffered from a misreading of evidence warranting interference under Section 378 of the CrPC?

The court applied Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, regarding the theft of electricity.

It relied on the precedent Bapupuri v. M.P. Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (2009) concerning the requirements for proving electricity theft.

Appellate jurisdiction over acquittals as summarized in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which establish that an acquittal should not be disturbed if the trial court’s view is a "possible view" and not patently perverse.

The court found several fatal flaws in the prosecution's case. First, the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence of the respondent's title or possession of the house.

Second, neither the wire used for the theft nor the electrical equipment was seized.

Third, and most critical, the panchnama (Ex. P/1) and assessment documents listed the customer as "Rajendra Lodhi," yet the person prosecuted was "Panchu Lodhi," with no clarification of their relationship.

The court noted the absence of independent witnesses despite the proximity of other houses.

Under the cited precedents, since the trial court's view was reasonable and the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, the high court found no grounds for interference.

The High Court dismissed I.A. No. 908/2023 (application for leave to appeal) and dismissed the criminal appeal.