Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in Electricity Theft Case, Holds Presumption Under S.39 Not Automatic

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal by Mahaveer, a director of M/s Rushi Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., against a Bombay High Court order that had overturned his trial acquittal and convicted him under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for allegedly abstracting and tampering with an electricity meter.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and order dated 15 October 2010, and restored the acquittal recorded by the trial court. The Court held that the presumption in Section 39 of the Act operated only when it was first proved that an artificial or unauthorised means had been used; absent reliable evidence of such means, the statutory presumption could not be invoked against the consumer. The Court observed that the prosecution witnesses had not deposed with “complete confidence” and that many conclusions were founded on inference, estimation or possibility rather than direct proof. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “What is obvious from the above is that 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. In other words, the presumption is not of automatic application, and instead, something is required to be established for it to apply.” The Court further noted that “most of the testimonies are based on estimation, presumption, approximation or possibilities,” and consequently neither Section 39 nor Section 44 was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Background The dispute arose after Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) officials in March 1993 noticed a significant mismatch between energy supplied and meter readings at the factory of M/s Rushi Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., then managed by Mahaveer. Inspectors alleged the meter box had three 4 mm holes and that additional wiring had slowed the meter, producing an estimated loss of about Rs. 30 lakhs. An FIR was lodged on 25 June 1993 and a chargesheet followed. At trial the Magistrate examined five prosecution witnesses, recorded statements under Section 313 CrPC from the accused, and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove abstraction or dishonest use of energy; both accused were acquitted.

On appeal the High Court framed issues including whether theft of energy and interference with the meter were proved and whether the complaint was by a competent MSEB officer. The High Court found that plugging the holes led to a significant rise in recorded consumption, treated the complaint as validly made by a deputed MSEB officer, and relied on precedent to reverse the acquittal, sentencing the accused to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each.

Before the Supreme Court it was urged that the High Court erred in reversing an acquittal without compelling reasons and that the prosecution had not established use of artificial means or direct tampering. The Supreme Court reiterated that this Court did not lightly reappreciate evidence on an appeal under Article 136 but could intervene if there was a manifest error or perverse conclusion. After close scrutiny the Court found the prosecution evidence fell short: no witness saw the accused tampering, no demonstrable proof showed the holes were created by the accused, and no practical tests established that the holes were used to abstract energy. The Court concluded the presumption under Section 39 was not engaged and that Section 44 was not proved. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, Mahaveer was acquitted and bail bonds were discharged. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1206 (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2154-2155 of 2011) Case Title: Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment