Prior Inspection Notice Not Required In Electricity Theft Cases: Patna HC

Refusing to shield a journalist-advocate from criminal prosecution for electricity theft, the High Court held that advance notice is not required before inspecting premises for power theft as it would defeat the entire purpose of the drive.

In a single-judge decision, Justice Arun Kumar Jha dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, holding that allegations of personal malice against electricity officials were vague and unsupported by cogent material.

Court Observations and Directions

The High Court observed that serving prior notice for an electricity theft raid would undermine the inspection. Addressing the petitioner's argument regarding lack of notice, the Court, in its reasoning, observed: "If the authorities are going to inspect/check the premises for theft of electricity or other unlawful activities or misdemeanor, there is no requirement of serving any notice as service of notice would frustrate the whole purpose."

Regarding the petitioner's plea that the FIR was registered out of personal vengeance, the Court noted that the earlier consumer forum case was decided nine years ago, which does not establish a ground of malafide. The Court further noted: "In any case, I do not find any grounds for quashing the Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 336/2023 as the case of the petitioner is not covered by any of the guidelines issued in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), a locus classicus on this issue, or any other judicial pronouncement."

The Court issued no specific formal operational directions other than dismissing the petition and disposing of pending applications.

Background

The dispute arose after a raid was conducted by the Junior Engineer of South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. (SBPDCL) at the premises of the petitioner, an advocate who also publishes a Hindi weekly newspaper named 'Magadh Ki Pukar'. The inspection team reported that the petitioner was bypassing the meter by connecting main wires directly from the pole, utilizing a load of 3162 watts against a sanctioned load of 1 KW, causing a loss of Rs. 85,925. An FIR was subsequently lodged under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, arguing that the case was malicious, retaliatory, and politically motivated due to his journalistic reporting and prior legal disputes with electricity department officials. He relied on Md. Shahid Imam vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. to contend that the matter was purely civil. However, SBPDCL demonstrated that proper seizure reports, photographs, and videography were generated at the spot, and pointed out that a subsequent theft inspection in 2026 revealed further ongoing theft by the petitioner.

The High Court distinguished Md. Shahid Imam vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. on facts, applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, and dismissed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.607 of 2026
Case Title: Raj Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. G.P.24, Mr. Shashank Chandra, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 101