BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Pambaiyan alias Pandian - Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation represented by its Superintending Engineer (Metro), Tiruchirappalli & Ors. - Respondents
WP (MD) No. 9149 of 2016 & WMP (MD) No. 7284 & 7285 of 2016
Decided On : 30-01-2024
Electricity Theft - Farmer - Electricity Act, 2003, Section 135, Section 152, Regulation 23 (AA) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a farmer, was found to have tampered with the electricity meter and was directed to pay a penalty for electricity theft. The petitioner claimed innocence and argued that the penalty was exorbitant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had tampered with the electricity meter, admitted guilt, and paid compounding charges. The court dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioner to pay the remaining penalty amount in monthly installments.
Issues: The issues involved the calculation of penalty for electricity theft and the petitioner's claim of innocence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once theft of energy is committed, it is an offence, and the petitioner's admission of tampering with the meter led to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was allowed to pay the remaining penalty amount in monthly installments.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the second respondent pertaining to his proceedings in Letter No.AEE/O & M/TVKY/ENFT/15-16 daetd 22.03.2016 and quashing the same.)
1. The petitioner is a farmer having a small piece of land to an extent of 33.35 cents in S.No.216/4 in Karumalai Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. He is having an electricity connection for this land and an electric motor for pumping water from his well. There was an inspection conducted by the respondent electricity Board on 26.02.2016 at about 04.30 pm and it was found that the meter was by-passed with an artificial means. Therefore, this petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- for compounding of the offence of electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner apprehending arrest, has paid the compounding charges. Thereafter the respondents have issued this impugned order dated 22.03.2016 calculating the loss due to the unauthorised use of the energy as Rs.1,93,015/- and directed this petitioner to pay the said amount within a period of seven days. Challenging the same this writ petition is filed.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a farmer and he was not aware of the installation of artificial equipment in the electricity meter. He also claims that his son might have done this and therefore, he pleads innocence. The respondents have intimidated the petitioner that he would be arrested along with his son and therefore, in order to avoid the arrest and without understanding the issue, he has paid the amount of Rs.16,000/- on 27.12.2016. Now by the order impugned, the respondents have calculated the loss for 365 days and has imposed a sum of Rs.1,93,015/- as penalty.
3. He further submits that the value of land itself is Rs.80,000/- and the petitioner has used the electric motor for irrigating the tomato crop, cultivated in his land and he would be irrigating the crops once in a week, approximately for 2 to 4 hours per day for a period six months. Therefore, according to him, even if it is calculated as per Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act, only a sum of Rs.23,099.32 alone can be charged. However, without ascertaining the nature of cultivation, the respondents have calculated the penalty 12 hours per day for a period of 365 days. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the respondents are exorbitant and is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent electricity Board submits that the Anti Power Theft Squad had conducted an inspection in the petitioner's electricity connection on 26.02.2016 and found that the petitioner has involved in theft of energy by by-passing the meter. The petitioner was provided with a single phase power supply under Tariff -V with a permitted load of 1.2KW. However, the same was converted into two phase power supply by using the conversion equipment with a load of 3.3KW, without obtaining prior permission from the electricity board.
5. He further submits that the petitioner has admitted the guilt and paid the compounding charges as per Section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Once the petitioner has admitted that he has committed the theft of energy, he is liable to be proceeded under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Therefore, the respondents issued Forms 9 and 10 under regulation 23 (AA) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code.
6. This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The petitioner is a marginal farmer having a piece of land to an extent of 33.3 cents, wherein he had been doing cultivation. The Anti Power Theft Squad of the respondent Board had conducted an inspection and found that there was some artificial equipment fitted in the electricity meter of the petitioner. Extracting electricity by way using an artificial equipme
Admission of guilt in electricity theft and tampering with the meter led to the dismissal of the writ petition.
The court's decision emphasized the authority of the respondent authorities to invoke specific regulations under the Electricity Act and upheld the final assessment order.
Civil liability for unauthorized electricity use is distinct from criminal liability for theft, and an acquittal in criminal proceedings does not negate the obligation to pay assessed charges.
Refund mandated for amounts paid under unfounded allegations of theft as no evidence was presented.
Both Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act are compoundable under Section 152, and the prosecution must provide reliable evidence for conviction.
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses and lack of substantive evidence.
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.