Electricity Act, 1910 – ss.39 and 44 – Theft of energy – Penalty for interference with meters or licensee’s works, and for improper use of energy – Conviction of the appellant-director of the company for the offence punishable u/ss.39 and 44, for committing theft of energy and for interference with meters or licensee’s works, and for improper use of energy by the High Court, reversing the findings of acquittal recorded by the Magistrate – Sustainability:
Held: Under s.39, for the presumption against the consumer to take effect, it must be proved that an artificial means or a means not authorised by the licensee had been used in committing the theft – Presumption is not of automatic application, and instead, something is required to be established for it to apply, thus, on facts, it must be established by the MSEB that an artificial means had been employed – None of the five witnesses deposed with complete confidence about the alleged theft of electricity and the use of artificial means therein, by the appellant – Most of the testimonies based on estimation, presumption, approximation or possibilities, which cannot be deemed to be sufficient for proving the theft – As a necessary follow-up of the inability of the prosecution to prove the use of artificial means, the presumption against the consumer, that is, the appellant, not set in motion – Charge u/s.44 is resting on shaky grounds as well – Nothing on record to show that the meter had been injured or tampered with – None of the investigators from the MSEB carried out a practical exercise of checking the holes and the wires, and the possibility of it being actually used for theft, as alleged to have taken place – None of the witnesses or any other third person saw the accused, or, for that matter, any other person connected to the Company, openly tampering with the box – No categorical statement that at the time of installation or any time prior to the inspection of the meter box by officials of the MSEB, there were no holes in the box – There are too many open possibilities for criminal liability to be affixed to any person – s.44 also has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt – Thus, neither ss.39 nor 44 could be established against the appellant – Judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside. [Paras 13-17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.