- In Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Apex court stated that “electricity being not considered to be a movable property, there cannot be theft thereof within the meaning of Section 379 I.P.C.”
- In Biswanath Patra vs Divisional Engineer (E) S And Lp, the High Court of Calcutta has held that “once a person is said to have committed an alleged offence of theft of electricity, no case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would lie in view of the specific provision of law contained in the Electricity Act, 2003 in this regard.”
- In Syed Yaqoob Syed Masood vs The State of Maharashtra And Anr it was observed that “electricity is energy and not property.”
- Torrent Power Aec Ltd. vs. Gayatri Intermediates Pvt. Ltd.
The High Court of Gujarat held that “The special court constituted under Section 153 or sub-section (5) of section 154 is being empowered to decide the quantum of civil liability in the case of power theft”.
- Suresh Ganpati Halvankar vs. The State of Maharashtra.
The Supreme Court held that “interference with the electric meter under Section 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is a compoundable offence.”
- MP Electricity Board v. Harsh Wood Products.
In this case the SC held that, “Whenever a licensee prima facie finds that the consumer has committed the theft of electricity, the licensee without giving an opportunity of being heard or without any notice disconnects the line and the line is restored only after the consumer compensates to the licensee.”