IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14691 of 2015 M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.

Versus HUSSAIN KHAN Appearance:

Shri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi -Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ashish Kumar Kurmi - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Heard on I.A.No.17526/2015, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

2. Considering the averments made therein, I.A.No.17526/2015 is allowed and delay caused in presenting this application is hereby condoned.

3. Heard.

4. The present petition under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of Special Leave to Appeal against the order of acquittal dated 10.10.2012, passed by Additional Sessions/Special Judge (Electricity Act) in Special Case No.207/2011, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

5. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that officers of the appellant's team investigated the premises of the respondent on 07.03.2011 at around 4:00 P.M. whereby they found that the respondent were consuming electricity after passing the meter, directly connected the wire of the three phases with L.T. service line and running floor mill which is punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the trial Court is bad in law and trial Court has committed error in disbelieving the documents/oral evidence of the appellant and the trial Court overlooked the material on record and passed the order of acquittal of the respondent/accused. Learned trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent from an offence on the ground that the applicants failed to prove their case and the officer was not competent to file the complaint, inspite it was not in dispute that he was consuming electricity by passing the meter hooking from the L.T. Service line. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as per the definition given in the Electricity Act the "consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity by the licensee and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity from the licensee, person who have applied for an electricity connection, persons whose supply is not yet connected even after due notice to avail connection or whose electricity supply has been disconnected. A consumer is: (i) ‘Low Tension (LT Consumer)’ if he obtains supply from the licensee at low or medium voltage (ii) ‘High Tension Consumer (HT Consumer)’ if he obtains supply from the licensee at High Voltage. (iii) ‘Extra High Tension Consumer (EHT Consumer)’ if he obtains supply from the licensee at Extra High Voltage. In these circumstances the respondent is guilty for theft of electricity and caused loss of the appellant and they are misusing the public resources and prays for setting aside the judgement dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions cum Special Court (Electricity Act), in Special Electricity Case No.207/2011.

7. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

8. After considering the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, this court finds that tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and document available on record as clearly described in para 10 and 11. There is lot of contradiction in the statement of PW2 R.K.Ram and PW3 Govind Das Prajapati. In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove its own case. In such circumstances, learned trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2012.

9. In such circumstances, learned trial court has not committed any error in passing the order of acquittal dated 10.10.2012 thereby acquitting the respondent. Hence, this leave to appeal having no merits