Proof of Dishonest Abstraction of Electricity Shifts Statutory Burden of Proof to Accused Under Section 135.

On December 21, 2006, an inspection team from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd (BYPL) conducted a raid at premises No. L-21, Janta Mazdoor Colony, Welcome, Delhi

The team observed the accused, Munna, indulging in direct theft of electricity by tapping into BSES LT MP boxes and illegally supplying power to 229 dwelling units for a fee

A theft bill of ₹94,28,504 was raised, and a criminal complaint was subsequently filed leading to FIR No. 711/2007

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, sentencing him to two years of simple imprisonment, a fine of ₹1,10,55,405, and a civil liability of ₹73,70,270

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of lack of independent witnesses, failure to prove ownership of the premises, and a ten-month delay in filing the complaint

Whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act are sustainable in light of the alleged procedural lapses and delay

The court primarily applied Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which criminalizes the dishonest tapping or abstraction of electricity

It specifically relied on the third proviso to Section 135, which mandates a legal presumption of theft against the consumer or occupier once the abstraction of electricity is proved, shifting the (rebuttable) onus of proof to the accused

The court also noted that for an offence under this section, the critical element is the act of dishonest abstraction rather than strict proof of property title

The Court found the testimonies of the inspection team (PW2, PW3, and PW4) consistent regarding the direct tapping of electricity and the seizure of illegal wires

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument regarding the non-examination of local residents, noting that the presence of documentary evidence and physical seizures corroborated the prosecution's case despite the residents' refusal to join the probe

On the issue of property ownership, the Court held that Section 135 focuses on the "dishonest abstraction" of power; since the evidence indicated the accused was managing the illegal supply at the site, strict proof of title was unnecessary

Regarding the ten-month delay in filing the FIR, the Court accepted the prosecution's explanation that internal departmental procedures—including raising bills and issuing notices—must be exhausted first, and noted that the appellant failed to show any prejudice caused by this delay

Finally, the Court held that the appellant failed to produce evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of guilt under the third proviso to Section 135, as his witness (DW1) only testified about a different address (L-382) and did not address the activities at the site of the raid (L-21)

The Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court's judgment; consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld