The court ruled that prima facie evidence of electricity theft necessitates a trial to determine the validity of allegations.

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the proceedings, being G.R. Case No.1047 of 2010 arising out of Arambagh Police Station Case No.394 of 2010 dated 1st Day of December, 2010 under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act , 2003 (as amended upto-

date) and an order of cognizance dated 15th day of January, 2011 taken by the court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Arambagh, District – Hooghly in the charge-sheet no.427 dated 29th day of December, 2010 under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act , 2003 against petitioner.

2. The petitioner contended to be a bona fide consumer of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited in respect of Permanent Service Connection No.16296 bearing Consumer No.E046453 corresponding to Consumer ID No.164176950 at his premises and paid the electric bills raised by the Distribution Company Limited.

3. On 1st day of December, 2010, the Station Manager attached to the Asanpur Group Electric Supply under the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited suddenly visited the premises of the petitioner along with other officials and asked the petitioner to allow them to inspect the meter box to detect the source of electricity consumption.

The officials inspected the meter box and did not find any anomaly or discrepancy in the meter.

4. The officials subsequently demanded a lump-sum amount from the petitioner who expressed his inability to fulfil the same.

5. Petitioner further stated to have been threatened by the officials of the Distribution Company Ltd. on failure to fulfil their demand, he would be thrust with a theft case in future.

6. Being agitated, on 1st day of December, 2010, the said Station Manager attached to the Asanpur Group Electric Supply West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Hooghly lodged a false complaint, being Arambagh Police Station Case No.394 of 2010 dated 1st day of December, 2010 under section 135 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act , 2003 (as amended upto- date) against the petitioner.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted as follows:- i.

From the documents annexed to the petition, it was crystal clear that on the basis of a printed First Information Report lodged by the opposite party no.2 herein, the instant criminal case had been started. From the said First Information, it would be further evident that the alleged offence committed by the petitioner had not been specifically stated by the de facto complainant (opposite party no.2 herein).

ii.

From the seizure list allegedly prepared by the de facto complainant (opposite party no.2 herein), it would not be evident that the category of consumer had been described as submersible. The service connection of the petitioner was domestic in nature and he was not running any submersible pump because the inspection was made at his premises not in the agricultural field.

iii.

Submersible pump or any motor or other machineries of such submersible pump had not been seized by the opposite party no.2 (de facto complainant).

8. Considered the submissions of Learned Advocate for all the parties.

9. Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act , 2003 states as follows:- “Section 135. Theft of Electricity.

[(1) Whoever, dishonestly,--

(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires