ઈલેક્ટ્રીસીટી એક્ટ ના અતિ મહત્વના ચુકાદા.

In the case of JTG Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Mandi Govindgarh v Punjab State Power Corporation[2], it was held that ‘theft of electricity’ was different from ‘unauthorised use of electricity,’ wherein there was no right of appeal in case of unauthorised use of electricity. The former employs an element of dishonest intention. 

In Jagannath Singh v B.S Ramaswamy[4], it was held that under Rule 56(2) of ‘Indian Electricity Rules, 1956,’ consumer is required to use all reasonable means in his power to ensure that no seal affixed to his meter is broken (otherwise than by supplier). If seal is broken in contravention to Rule 56, even the consumer who has not himself broken the seal is punishable under Rule 138, with fine, unless he proves he used all reasonable means in his power to ensure that seal is not broken.

In this case, the SC also laid down a test for perfected means of dishonest abstraction whereby,

• Tampering by consumer must be proved

• Tampering must be of a ‘functional character’ to enable pilferage or theft by itself

• Tampering should be capable of retarding to correctly record quantity of electricity consumed

• Evidence must conclusively prove dishonest abstraction by consumer

In Santaben Ranchhodbhi Patel v GUVNL[5], the court held that if laboratory tests show that seal is broken by ‘rusting’ and no tampering is found, it could not be presumed that meter reading had been reversed and so, theft of electricity was not proved.

Dishonest Abstraction of Electricity

In Ram Chandra Prasad. v State of Bihar[6], the SC held that it was not sufficient to say that meter had been tampered and that it was under control of the accused. It was also necessary to establish that there was ‘dishonest abstraction’ of energy by artificial means which would raise a presumption in favour of prosecution.

Unauthorised reconnection to the main

In Sajeetha Begum v Tamil Nadu Electricity Board[7], disconnection of power supply was for non-payment of consumption charges. The service connection was found to have been unauthorisedly reconnected to main which was an offence committed u/s 135, where extra levy was worked when the matter was in provisional assessment. Consequently, consumer filed a writ petition. It was held that consumer should file objection to provisional assessment before appropriate authority. Further, court granted relief of restoration of electric supply subject to outcome of the petition. Subsequently, it was held that drawing of electricity from main line without any authority or permission had to be discouraged, and thereby raising punitive bill was proper.

A licensee should disconnect supply upon detecting theft

Upon detection of theft of electricity, any licensee or supplier should immediately disconnect electricity supply. However, only such rank of officer of licensee or supplier company who is authorised by the appropriate commission can disconnect supply of electricity. Thereafter, such officer must lodge a complaint in writing relating to commission of offence in the nearest police station having jurisdiction, within twenty-four hours of such disconnection. Further, upon deposit of assessed amount of electricity charges, such officer of licensee company should restore supply within forty-eight hours.[8]

In Dashmesh Ice & Oil Factory v Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.[9], it was held in respect of theft that action of the licensee in not restoring electricity supply in absence of payment (as determined in third proviso to Section 135(1A)) is not illegal; but payment, if made shall be subject to final outcome of civil liability determined by special court under Section 154(5) and is to be adjusted as per Section 154(6).

Authorised officer to inspect and seize

‘Authorised officers’ of licensee companies have been granted powers to search, seize or break open any property/premises or examine any books of accounts if they have ‘reason to believe’ that unauthorised use of electricity is being carried on at that location/premise. The occupant of the premise (or anybody designated on his behalf) must be present during the search, and a list of all items seized during search should be handed over to him. To this effect, provisions of CrPC relating to search and seizure will apply during searches conducted under the Act.[10]

The expression ‘reason to believe’ has been judicially taken to mean honest application of mind to facts and circumstances of case, and the law on the subject, as was held in M.A Rashid v State of Kerala[11].

In the case of H. Anurag v Govt. of Tamil Nadu[12], the SC held that even an intangible thing like electricity can be regarded as “goods.”

As held in Jagannath Singh v B.S. Ramaswamy[13], burden of proving theft lies on the prosecution. As ‘subject’ of theft is electricity and not any material object, the proof, in almost all circumstances, must be of a circumstantial character. This was reiterated in Ram Chandra Prasad v State of Bihar[14].

In Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v Basantibai[15], it was held that where the Executive engineer found the meter’s seal intact at time of inspection, and only one phase of the installed meter was found closed, allegations of fraud do not sustain.

Theft of electricity as cognizable offence

In Chhabi Rani Ghosh v CESC Ltd[16], it was held that since an offence u/s 135 is punishable with imprisonment for three years, it must be regarded as cognizable offence and therefore, on receipt of information, police must register an FIR. It was further held that in absence of a warrant from the Magistrate, Police Authorities should act only in aid and exercise of powers by authorised officers.

Disconnection without notice to the consumer

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Anjana Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.[17], it was laid down that electricity supply should not be disconnected by the board, without a notice to consumer. Electricity supply cannot be disconnected on allegations that consumer had committed theft, where the same is denied. If allegations are true or not have to be decided by appropriate proceedings. The SC also held that it is pertinent to serve notice on the concerned party before discontinuing supply.

Persons to be tried by Special courts

In Shiva Parvati Marbles v Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.[21], the court held that persons charged under Sections 135 to 139 (for offences mentioned above) are to be tried by Special Courts. Imposition of punishment u/s 135 has nothing to do with civil liability (levy of charges for unauthorised use of electricity).