IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 650 of 2017 MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.

Versus SHRI ABDUL ZAHID KHAN Appearance:

Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri L.C. Chourasiya - Advocate for the respondent.

JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant/company assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.07.2015 passed in Special Case No.123-(a)/2011 by the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Bhopal (M.P.) whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has been acquitted of the offence under Section 135 (1)

(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23-4-2011 at 03.10 pm, during a surprise inspection of the accused's quarter number 60/20 Jogipura Barkhedi Bhopal by the inspection team of the complainant company, it was found that the accused was illegally using 3 bulbs, 3 fans, 2 TVs, 1 fridge, 2 coolers, 1 water pump, 1 AC etc. electrical appliances by stealing a total of 3635 watts of electricity. During the said inspection, R.K. Agarwal, Junior Engineer, Hanif Siddiqui, Junior Engineer and Ghazanfar, Line Helper of the inspection team, while taking action, prepared a Panchnama and Site Inspection Report in front of the accused. When the accused refused to sign it, a copy of the same was given to the accused. Thus, the accused was caught stealing electricity by the inspection team of the complainant company. After calculation, a loss statement was prepared and on the basis of the loss statement, a provisional assessment was made by the complainant on which an amount of Rs. 56,748/- was imposed and the said amount was expected to be paid as per Bill No.40 dated 29.04.2011. The accused was also given an opportunity to submit his objection, but the amount imposed was not deposited by the accused. Hence, a complaint has been filed on behalf of the complainant company for criminal cognizance against the accused for the offence under section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 with a prayer to punish him appropriately.

3. After the case was taken into cognizance, the learned Special Judge has framed the charge against the accused under Section 135 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The accused denied the charges and sought a trial. He defended himself by claiming that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He did not lay the wire and that the house in which the theft was alleged to have occurred did not belong to him.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined Mohd. Haneef Siddiqui (PW-1); R.K.Agrawal (PW-2); Gajanfar Ali (PW- 3); and Deepti Singh Thakur (PW-4) and placed Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/4(c) the documents on record. The accused has not examined any witness in his defence.

5. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies of witnesses and examined the documentary evidence available on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually acquitted the accused respondent of the charge under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act. Hence, this appeal.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present appellant that the complainant has got examined four witnesses. They have established the case of complainant on cogent basis but the learned Trial Court has erroneously acquitted the present appellant on the ground that the house in which the electricity theft was found to be occurred, did not belong to accused while the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has stated that House No. 60/20 Jogipura Barkhedi Bhopal was his house and, therefore, nothing else is required to be proved by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court overlooking this evidence on record has erroneously acquitted the accused. It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment of acqui