High Court Upholds Conviction For Direct Theft Of Electricity Under Section 135

A single-judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha heard an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. by the sole accused against the trial court judgment dated 29.11.2017, which had convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The appeal challenged both conviction and sentence arising from allegations of direct theft of electricity at Janata Mazdoor Colony, Welcome, Delhi.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentence. It found that the prosecution had proved illegal tapping of electricity through contemporaneous inspection reports, seizure of illegal wires and video evidence, and that the statutory presumption under the third proviso to Section 135 arose once abstraction was shown. The Court noted that "the mere non-examination of local residents or beneficiaries, in the presence of documentary and physical evidence proved on record, does not by itself diminish the prosecution case." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Further, a bare reading of the third proviso to Section 135 of the Act makes it evident that once abstraction or theft of electricity is proved, a presumption arises against the consumer that he has indulged in theft. Though such presumption is rebuttable, the onus lies upon the accused to establish that no theft of electricity was being committed at the premises. In the case on hand, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to which I have already referred to substantiate the case of illegal tapping of electricity from the main line in the premises occupied by the accused. Their testimony has not been discredited in any way. Therefore, the burden shifted to the accused to rebut the statutory presumption contained in the aforesaid proviso. To prove the defence case, DW1 was examined.” On that basis the Court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption and that there was "no infirmity in the findings of the trial court warranting an interference."

Background The prosecution case arose from an inspection conducted on 21.12.2006 at about 5:05 a.m. by enforcement officials of BSES YPL at premises No. L‑21, Janata Mazdoor Colony. Inspecting officers alleged that the accused was tapping electricity from LT MP boxes and supplying it to 229 dwelling units through illegal aluminium wires. A theft bill for Rs. 94,28,504/- was raised, and a complaint was lodged on 09.10.2007 leading to registration of FIR Crime No.711/2007 at Welcome Police Station. The trial court framed a charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act; prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced inspection reports, load reports, seizure memos, and a CD containing videography. The accused denied the allegations, claimed false implication due to enmity with police and absence of ownership of the premises, and relied on DW1 who deposed that the accused resided at L‑382 rather than L‑21.

The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to two years’ simple imprisonment, imposed a fine of Rs. 1,10,55,405/- (with three months’ default), and directed payment of Rs. 73,70,270/- towards civil liability. On appeal, the High Court considered the credibility of PW2–PW4 who described contemporaneous seizure and removal of illegal wires, the recording of load and inspection reports on site, and videography of the inspected area. The Court accepted the prosecution explanation for delay in filing the complaint as arising from departmental procedure to raise theft bills and issue notices. It held that strict proof of title to premises was not necessary once dishonest abstraction was shown. The Court therefore concluded that the statutory presumption under Section 135(3) arose and the accused did not rebut it. The appeal was dismissed and no interim directions or modification of sentence were granted.

Case Details: Case No.: CRL.A. 49/2018 & CRL.M.A. 890/2018 Case Title: MUNNA v. THE STATE & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashu Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Vikram Singh, P.S. Welcome; Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.