The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the owner in cases of illegal abstraction of energy and the distinction between civil and criminal liabilities.

Petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Gupta has prayed for issuance of writ / writs for quashing of the FIR of Kotwali P.S. Case No.640 of 2011, Special Electricity Case No.176 of 2011 registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as for scraping the punitive bill furnished by Bihar State Electricity Board.

2. Md. Kamal Mustafa, Assistant Electrical Engineer had filed written report (Annexure-2) disclosing therein that after constituting raiding party consisting Arbind Kumar, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Pawan Kumar, Junior Engineer, Arbind Kumar Singh, Junior Engineer along with Executive Magistrate and Armed Forces conducted raid at the House No. 301 belonging to Sanjay Kumar Gupta, wherein for the present Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited is housed having Commercial Connection No.151150and found the meter tampered by having the seal broken as well as also found interlocking system of body of meter damaged and by this way he had opined that the consumer was stealthily consuming the electric energy on account of which Electricity Department had sustained loss to a tune of Rs.5,63,158/-.

3. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that petitioner has got one brother Sunil Kumar Gupta and they both own premises at Aasiyana Plaza which was given on rent to M/s Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited promoted by Government of India as per registered deed of agreement dated 14th December, 2010 (Annexure-1). As per Clause 6 of the deed of agreement, an obligation was cast upon M/s Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited to pay the electric consumption charge in respective of the premises by having a separate meter installed for the purpose. Then submitted that there happens to be two running non-domestic supply connections one in name of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, the petitioner and other in name of Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited. Because of the fact that whole premises was taken on rent therefore Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited was also paying the bill against the charges shown against Consumer No.151150. It has further been submitted that on the date of alleged raid, petitioner was not at all present at his house on account of having been posted at Chattisgarh as Deputy Finance Manager, Coal India Ltd. South-East, Old Field and was stationed at Bishrampur. Then it has been submitted that although petitioner stood identified as an owner of the house but the house in question never remained under his possession after having been let out in favour of Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited vide registered deed of agreement and so it was the Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited who was occupier of the premises on the alleged date of raid and so whatever been alleged, for that the Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited is answerable. Then submitted that because of the fact that there happens to be no specific disclosure with regard to stealthily consuming the electric energy by the petitioner rather a fake allegation happens to be. Then submitted that taking into account the electronic meter installed by the Department wherein chips are being provided which could expose any kind of interference, and that has been taken into account in several judgment of the Hon’ble Court therefore, a circular has been issued by the BSEB vide letter no.122 dated 18-02-2010 directing the officers concerned to download all related information from the computer chips inserted in the electronic meter and analyze the download data before taking up an action under Section 126, 135 of the Electricity Act (Annexure-3). In the present case the authority had failed to comply with the direction and on account thereof, registration of the case is in utter violation thereof. In likewise manner it has also been submitted that punitive bill has illegally been raised against the petitioner which ought not to be on account of absence of petitioner being an occupier. It has further been submitted that there ha