SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 2956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
POORAN LAL KASHYAP – Respondent
ACQA/1051/2024



##PAGE1##

1

ACQA No. 1051 of 2024

2026:CGHC:5204

RAHUL

NAFR

JHA

Digitally signed

by RAHUL JHA

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Date: 2026.02.02

10:27:44 +0530

ACQA No. 1051 of 2024

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Assistant

Engineer, Sub-Division (Distribution) H.S. Shukla (Operation And

Maintenance) Division Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Compay Ltd.

Champa, District - Champa Chhattisgarh

Appellant(s)

Versus

Pooran Lal Kashyap S/o Late Sitaram Aged About 36 Years R/o Bagdabripara -

Mahant, P.S. Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh

Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

Judgment on Board

30.01.2026

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Chhattisgarh

State Power Distribution Company Limited under Section 378 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment of acquittal

##PAGE2##

2

ACQA No. 1051 of 2024

dated 21.11.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity

Act)/Judicial Magistrate First Class, whereby the respondent/accused has

been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135(1-A) of the

Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent/accused is a

resident of Village Bagadbari Para–Mahant, Police Outpost Nawagarh,

District Janjgir-Champa, where an electricity meter bearing Service

Connection No. 1002382196 was installed at his residential premises.

On 10.11.2015, a vigilance inspection was conducted by K.K. Gupta,

Junior Engineer (PW-1) along with departmental staff including

Rajkumar Patel, Assistant Lineman (PW-3). Upon reaching the premises

of the respondent, the inspection team constituted the inspection squad

and prepared the inspection memo. It is alleged that during inspection,

the respondent was found present at the spot and was informed about the

inspection of the electricity connection. On inspection of the premises, it

was found that the electricity meter had been bypassed prior to the meter

and electricity was being illegally drawn for running electrical

appliances such as bulbs, television, fans, cooler and CFL bulbs,

amounting to approximately 1550 watts of load. In relation to the

alleged theft of electricity, the inspection officer prepared panchnama,

site inspection report, site map, and seizure memo, and allegedly seized

about two meters of wire used for bypassing the meter. Thereafter, the

Assistant Engineer H.S. Shukla (PW-2) prepared the assessment sheet

and issued a provisional assessment order determining a provisional

##PAGE3##

3

ACQA No. 1051 of 2024

penalty amounting to ₹50,702/-. Subsequently, H.S. Shukla (PW-2), in

his capacity as a Nodal Officer duly authorised by the electricity

distribution company, filed a written complaint before the competent

Court under Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, leading to

registration of the criminal case against the respondent.

3. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court, by judgment dated

21.11.2016, acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 135(1-

A) of the Electricity Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the

charge beyond reasonable doubt. Being aggrieved by the said judgment

of acquittal, the appellant–electricity distribution company has preferred

the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant–electricity distribution company

submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error of law in

acquitting the respondent despite sufficient oral and documentary

evidence establishing the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity

Act, 2003. It is contended that in terms of Sections 135(2) and 135(3),

the authorised officer is empowered to inspect and search the premises,

and the presence of the occupant alone is required during such

inspection. In the present case, the respondent himself was present and

had signed the inspection and seizure documents (Exhibits P-3 to P-6), a

m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top