Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Surender Kumar Sain – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir for electricity theft, conspiracy, corruption; investigation details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. state seeks charges against all under electricity act. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. compounding bars trial; bona fide border connection. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. no corrupt means proven under pc act. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. contractor test report not liable for misuse. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. unauthorized use under s126, not theft s135. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. compounding under s152 avoids double jeopardy. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 8. ipc/pc charges not maintainable post-compounding. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 9. accused discharged; state revision dismissed. (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
All the above titled revision petitions are being decided by a common order, as, Criminal Revision Nos.5, 6 and 150 of 2022 have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.12.2021, passed by the learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court’), by virtue of which, the charges, under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, were framed against Sati
Compounding of electricity offence under Electricity Act Section 152 bars prosecutions under IPC Sections 420, 120-B and Prevention of Corruption Act Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) for same acts, constitut....
Distinction exists between civil liability under Section 126 and criminal liability under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, with mens rea being essential for theft prosecution.
The assessing officer has no authority to pass any order regarding assessment of liability and penalty against a consumer if proceedings for theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 are i....
The court affirmed the conviction for electricity theft based on credible evidence despite the defendant's claims of procedural impropriety.
The Court ruled that cases of alleged electricity theft fall under Section 135 rather than Section 126 of the Electricity Act, stressing the importance of jurisdiction in disputed factual matters.
An acquittal on the charge of theft under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity act, 2003 does not automatically absolve the consumer from the civil liability under Section 126, as the two operate on....
The prosecution must adhere to mandatory statutory provisions regarding searches and seizures; failure to do so undermines the validity of electricity theft convictions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
