Prosecution must establish seizure and safe custody of tampered meters to prove electricity theft.

The appellant (Electricity Company) filed a complaint against the respondent (accused) under Section 135(1)(b)(c)(d)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

It was alleged that during an inspection on July 11, 2010, the accused was found committing electricity theft by tampering with the meter body and closing one phase at his liquor shop premises.

The inspection team alleged an unauthorized load of 9855 watts against a sanctioned 3250 watts, causing a loss of ₹2,30,077.

While the inspection occurred on July 11, the meter was allegedly seized the following day by a Junior Engineer (R.K. Dubey) and sent for laboratory testing on August 10, 2010.

The lab report confirmed internal tampering.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused on May 22, 2012, citing failures in proving the seizure and safe custody of the meter.

The appellant challenged this acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the seizure, sealing, and safe custody of the allegedly tampered meter beyond a reasonable doubt to establish criminal liability under the Electricity Act.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or illegal, warranting interference by the Appellate Court.

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which penalizes the dishonest abstraction or use of electricity through meter tampering.

The Court relied on the evidentiary standard that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Regarding appeals against acquittal, the court applied principles from Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu (2016), and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023), which establish that if two views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must prevail, and an acquittal should not be reversed unless the trial court's finding is perverse, illegal, or impossible.

The Court observed that the allegedly tampered meter was not seized on the day of the search (July 11, 2010).

Although PW-2 claimed Junior Engineer R.K. Dubey seized it the next day, the prosecution failed to examine Mr. Dubey as a witness.

Crucially, no seizure memorandum or documentary evidence existed to prove when or how the meter was removed, sealed, or kept in safe custody during the one-month gap before laboratory testing.

The Testing Officer (PW-4) admitted the meter was in a carton box but did not testify that it was sealed.

Furthermore, the inspection report (Ex. P/2) contained handwriting from multiple individuals (PW-2 and PW-3) without clear attribution, creating doubts about its authenticity.

The Court reasoned that the broken chain of custody and the lack of a formal seizure memo meant the prosecution failed to link the tampered meter tested in the lab definitively to the accused's premises.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide reliable and cogent evidence regarding the seizure and sealing of the evidence.

Following the settled principle that the appellate court should not interfere with a legally plausible view of the trial court, the Court found no perversity or error of law in the original acquittal.

The respondent was cleared of all charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.