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
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.