Failure to prove Section 151 authorization and accused’s possession warrants acquittal under Section 135.

On 31 May 2006, a PGVCL/GEB checking squad allegedly found the respondent directly abstracting electricity from an electricity line near his house at Bhenakvad village by using an electric cable and apparatus.

An inspection report was prepared, the alleged unauthorized consumption was assessed at ₹44,642.77, and a supplementary bill was issued, which remained unpaid.

The complainant, a Deputy Engineer who was not part of the checking squad and had not visited the site, lodged the complaint on 1 January 2007, approximately seven months after the inspection.

The trial court framed a charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, but acquitted the respondent after the prosecution examined five witnesses and produced documentary evidence.

The State challenged the acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Whether the trial court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence while recording the acquittal.

Whether the impugned judgment suffered from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting appellate interference.

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 requires the prosecution to establish unauthorized abstraction or use of electricity and the accused’s connection with the premises or alleged act.

Section 151 restricts cognizance of offences under the Act to a written complaint by the Appropriate Government, Appropriate Commission, an authorized officer, Chief Electrical Inspector, Electrical Inspector, licensee, generating company, or a police report/special-court proceeding falling within the statutory provision.

Section 50 concerns the electricity supply code and related measures for prevention and regulation of unauthorized use.

The Court relied on State of Gujarat v. Mohamad Nathabhai Sumara and other electricity-theft decisions for the requirement of proper authorization and reliable proof of the accused’s connection with the premises.

On appeals against acquittal, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka establish that although the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, the accused enjoys a reinforced or double presumption of innocence, and an acquittal should not be disturbed where two reasonable views are possible.

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the respondent’s ownership, occupation, or possession of the premises from which electricity was allegedly abstracted.

The complainant had no first-hand knowledge of the inspection, while the checking officer admitted that no site panchnama was prepared, no signatures of panch witnesses or nearby residents were obtained, and no material was collected to establish the respondent’s possession or ownership.

The alleged seized material was neither handed over to the police nor produced before the trial court, and the investigating officer admitted that he had not recovered any muddamal or obtained the requisite approval.

The Court further held that the prosecution had not produced the authorization contemplated under Section 151 of the Electricity Act.

These evidentiary and procedural deficiencies created substantial doubt regarding both the occurrence and the respondent’s involvement.

Applying the restrictive principles governing interference with an acquittal, the Court concluded that the trial court’s view was reasonable and neither perverse nor legally unsustainable.

It held that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court had rightly acquitted the respondent.

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