FIR Lodged by Unauthorised Officer Violates Section 151 Electricity Act, Vitiates Entire Trial: Bombay High Court - 2025-10-15

Authority Trumps Evidence: When an Unauthorised FIR Dooms a Prosecution

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has reaffirmed a fundamental procedural safeguard in electricity theft prosecutions. Justice M.M. Nerlikar dismissed the State’s appeal, holding that an FIR lodged by an unauthorised officer under Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, strips the court of jurisdiction to take cognizance and thereby vitiates the entire trial.

The Ice Factory Raid and Its Procedural Fallout

In June 2006, a Flying Squad inspected an ice factory run by Gulab Ali Sayyad Bannu in Walgaon, Amravati. The squad discovered a tampered meter running 73.68% slow during a pulse test, alleging theft of 8,768 units worth ₹46,032. A panchanama was drawn, the meter seized, and four days later an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act. The Special Court acquitted the accused on merits; the State appealed.

State’s Case: Substance Over Form

The APP argued that the evidence of the informant (PW-1) and vigilance officer (PW-2) conclusively proved tampering. Even if PW-1 lacked prior written authorisation, the subsequent taking of cognizance by a competent court converted any procedural lapse into a curable irregularity rather than a fatal illegality.

Defence: A Statutory Bar Cannot Be Wished Away

Defence counsel countered that Section 151, as amended for Maharashtra in 2005, expressly bars cognizance unless the complaint is filed by designated authorities or an authorised officer. PW-1, the In-charge Deputy Executive Engineer, admitted in cross-examination that he possessed no document empowering him to lodge the report. The four-day gap between meter seizure and FIR further undermined the prosecution story.

The High Court’s Straightforward Reading of Section 151

Justice Nerlikar quoted the amended provision in full:

> “No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except—(a) upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorised by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or a licensee or the generating company… or (b) upon a police report… based on the First Information Report filed by a person who is authorised to file a complaint…”

Because PW-1 was neither a licensee nor shown to be acting under any authorisation, the FIR itself was incompetent. The court rejected the “mere irregularity” argument:

> “Taking cognizance goes to the root of the matter… the aforementioned illegality being a fundamental flaw… cannot amount to an irregularity.”

Key Observations

> “If there is no authorization to such officer or authority then the Court cannot take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Electricity Act.”

> “The entire trial is vitiated. As taking cognizance is not an empty formality especially when there is an express bar…”

> “The aforesaid provision cannot be bypassed in view of rider under Section 151 of the Electricity Act.”

Implications for Future Prosecutions

By dismissing the appeal, the High Court has sent a clear message to utilities and investigating agencies: compliance with Section 151 is not optional. Future theft cases must be initiated only by authorised personnel; otherwise, even the strongest technical evidence will be rendered irrelevant once the foundational defect in cognizance is established.

The judgment underscores that procedural safeguards protecting the accused exist precisely to prevent overreach by enforcement agencies operating outside their statutory mandate.