IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Surender Kumar Sain - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Revision Nos. : 5, 6, 150 & 220 of 2022
Decided on :16-12- 2025
| 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 Satinder Mohan (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.150 of 2022) and Surender Kumar Sain (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.5 of 2022), as well as, Sushil Kumar Goel (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.6 of 2022), against whom, the learned trial Court has framed the charges under Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. By way of the same order, learned trial Court has discharged the respondents, in Criminal Revision No.220 of 2022.
2.Parties to the present lis are hereinafter referred to in the same manner, in which, they were referred to by the learned trial Court.
3.Brief facts, leading to filing of the above titled Criminal Revisions, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:-
3.1.Police of Police Station SV & ACB, Nahan, has submitted the charge-sheet, in case FIR No.7 of 2011, dated 24.6.2011, registered under Section 135(1) (a) of the Electricity Act, Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the accused persons before the learned trial Court.
3.2.The said charge sheet has been filed on the ground that on 24.06.2011, the then Additional Superintendent of Police, Vimukt Ranjan, SV & ACB, Shimla, Camp at Nahan, has submitted a rukka for registration of the FIR, disclosing therein, that on 24.06.2011, the I.O., along with Dy. SP Ramesh Sharma and Inspector Vidhi Chand, HC Yashwant, in the official vehicle, were present at Kala Amb, where, they came to know from the reliable sources, that at village Joharon, near the premises of M/s Jasmer Packers and Shri Khaduji Industries, in a small room, one power connection of H.P. State Electricity Board Limited has been installed, which is in the name of Satinder Mohan and said Satinder Mohan is running a brick kiln in the adjoining boundary of Haryana in village Dera Hamidpur, Tehsil Narayangarh, District Ambala and the said person, as per the information, in connivance with the officials and officers of the H.P. State Electricity Board, has laid underground cable and using the power supply for the brick kiln, which is situated in Haryana. As such, by using the electricity from the connection, which was issued by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, was running the tube well, in his Brick Kiln in Haryana and he has gained illegal benefit by causing financial loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh. As per the said information, if the said spot is visited, then the underground cable can be recovered.
3.3.The said information was found to be authentic and in order to verify the said information, the I.O., along with other police officials, reached at village Joharon and he called the then SDO HPSEB Kala Amb S.K. Goel, upon which, he reached at the spot, along with the officials. T
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.