The Bombay High Court has quashed a conviction for theft of electricity, emphasizing that prosecution must establish every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where technical evidence is central to the case. The court found fatal gaps in the prosecution’s case, including failure to prove the identity of the tampered meter and absence of independent technical verification. The judgment reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain, and that reliance on departmental witnesses without corroboration is insufficient in cases involving complex technical allegations.
The Verdict
The applicant prevailed. The Bombay High Court acquitted the accused of charges under Section 379 IPC read with Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The core legal holding is that conviction for theft of electricity requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of both the identity of the tampered meter and the intentional, artificial means of energy abstraction. The court quashed the concurrent convictions of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge, directing the accused’s immediate release.
Background & Facts
The applicant, Nuruddin Chhotak Baig, operated an industrial unit, Super Plastic Enterprises, in Bhandup, Mumbai, supplied with electricity by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). On 31 August 1998, an MSEB Flying Squad conducted an inspection and alleged that a hole in the base of the electricity meter permitted insertion of a wire to halt the rotation of the disc, thereby enabling theft of electricity. The prosecution claimed the sanctioned load was 30 HP, but the connected load was 83.25 HP. A panchnama and spot inspection report were prepared, and a First Information Report was registered on 2 September 1998, alleging theft to the tune of Rs.13,53,515.
The prosecution examined three witnesses - all MSEB officials: PW-1 (Deputy Executive Engineer), PW-2 (MSEB employee), and PW-3 (MSEB employee). PW-2 was later declared hostile. The Investigating Officer was not examined, and no independent witness or technical expert was called. The accused, under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed the meter referenced in the report was not installed at his premises. He produced electricity bills bearing a different meter number, which were duly proved.
The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the accused, sentencing him to three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The applicant then filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court.
The Legal Issue
The central legal issue was whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the electricity meter alleged to have been tampered with was the one installed at the applicant’s premises, and whether the presence of a hole in the meter conclusively proved intentional, artificial tampering for dishonest abstraction of electricity.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The appointed advocate argued that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the meter. The bills produced by the defence, admitted in evidence, showed a different meter number than the one cited in the FIR and inspection report. The prosecution offered no contemporaneous records - such as meter installation logs, consumer ledgers, or change registers - to reconcile this discrepancy. The absence of the Investigating Officer and the panch witness further undermined the reliability of the panchnama. The hole in the meter, the advocate submitted, could have resulted from natural rusting due to monsoon conditions, as admitted by PW-3, and no expert evidence ruled out wear and tear. The allegation of excess load was unsupported by any load test or scientific assessment.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of MSEB officials, being departmental witnesses, was sufficient to establish the offence. The presence of a hole in the meter, coupled with the discrepancy in load, was sufficient to infer dishonest intent. The prosecution argued that the defence’s bills were irrelevant as they pertained to a different meter, and that the accused’s denial was a standard defence tactic. No specific rebuttal was offered regarding the non-examination of the Investigating Officer or the panch witness.
The Court's Analysis
The court held that while the evidence of departmental witnesses is not inherently unreliable, its credibility must be tested rigorously, especially in cases involving technical allegations of theft of electricity. The court emphasized that the prosecution’s failure to establish the identity of the meter was a fatal flaw. The meter number in the FIR and inspection report did not match the number on the electricity bills proved by the defence. The prosecution offered no documentary evidence to explain this discrepancy, rendering the entire chain of evidence speculative.
"The explanation offered by the prosecution witnesses that the bills pertained to another meter is vague, unsupported by documentary evidence, and insufficient to dispel the serious doubt created in the prosecution's case."
The court further noted that the prosecution relied solely on the presence of a hole in the meter to infer tampering. However, PW-3 admitted under cross-examination that the outer layer of the meter rusts during the rainy season. No expert testimony was adduced to distinguish between natural corrosion and artificial tampering. The court held that such an inference, drawn without technical evidence, amounted to conjecture, not proof.
"The inference that the hole constituted an artificial means for dishonest abstraction of energy is based on conjecture and not on proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
The court also highlighted the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the panch witness as procedural lapses that prejudiced the defence. The absence of a load test report or any scientific assessment of the connected load further weakened the prosecution’s case. The court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction permits interference where findings are based on misreading of evidence or result in a miscarriage of justice. Here, the cumulative effect of these omissions rendered the conviction unsustainable.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment sets a clear precedent for prosecutions under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and similar statutory offences involving technical evidence. Practitioners must now ensure that the prosecution establishes, with contemporaneous documentation, the identity of the equipment allegedly tampered with. Mere reliance on inspection reports and departmental testimony without corroboration will no longer suffice.
Future cases must include independent technical evidence - such as load test reports, expert opinions on meter integrity, and maintenance records - to substantiate allegations of tampering. The absence of the Investigating Officer or panch witness, without explanation, will now be viewed as a material irregularity. Defence counsel can leverage this judgment to challenge convictions based on circumstantial evidence where the chain of proof is incomplete. The ruling also reinforces the principle that in criminal cases, especially those involving complex technical elements, the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be diluted by the status of the witness.
The judgment does not immunize energy theft but demands a higher standard of proof. It is binding on all subordinate courts in Maharashtra and will influence similar cases under Section 379 IPC read with other statutory provisions involving technical fraud.
