IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.
Md. Maksood Alam, S/o Md. Sharif Alam - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.168 of 2014
Decided On : 21-01-2026
Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 126 and 135(1) – Electricity theft – Conviction and sentence – Investigating Officer was not examined by prosecution, thereby depriving appellant of his valuable right to cross-examine him, especially on crucial aspect of appellant's alleged connection or possession over premises – Non-examination of Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to appellant – Appellant was not present at alleged premises at the time of raid – In such a situation, Investigating Officer was expected to take effective steps to establish appellant's connection, possession, or control over premises where electricity was allegedly being used illegally – However, no such effort is evident from record – Prosecution has failed to establish appellant's connection either in form of his possession or control, or ownership over alleged premises where electricity was allegedly being used illegally – None of seized articles was produced before Trial Court – FIR and seizure list do not disclose method adopted for calculating alleged loss to Electricity Department – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 14, 14.2, 17, 18, 18.1, 20 to 22)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 464 [Section 510 of BNSS] – Omission to frame charge – Appellant has failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice which is claimed to have caused to him merely on account of non-framing of a formal charge – Appellant defended himself effectively and was fully aware of nature of accusation levelled against him – Omission to frame a formal charge has not vitiated trial. (Para 16)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under electricity act based on evidence from a raid. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of trial procedure and prosecution evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. lack of evidence to establish possession over premises. (Para 10) |
| 4. importance of examining the investigating officer. (Para 11 , 13) |
| 5. failure of prosecution to establish connection with premises. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 6. no formal charge framed; trial not vitiated. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. non-production of seized articles detrimental to prosecution. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. non-compliance with statutory provisions in loss calculation. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 9. appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.03.2014 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Electricity, Magadh Area, Gaya, in Trial No. 208/13/189/14 arising out of G.R. No. (E) 49 of 2011. The appellant has been convicted under Section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2007, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The trial court further directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 43,77,888/- × 3 = Rs. 1,31,33,664/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty- One Lakh Thirty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Four) as fine on the ground of loss caused to the Electricity Department owing to the commission of electricity theft by him.
Prosecution Story :-
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as appears from the FIR, is as follows:-
On 24.08.2011, at about 3:30 P.M., the informant, along with other members of the raiding party constituted by the Electricity Board vide Order No. XII, Misc. No. 109/87-682, conducted a raid at village Janpur, which falls under Bodh Gaya Police Station in Gaya District. At that time, the Deputy Executive Magistrate, Sureshwar Kumar Mehta (PW-7), A.S.I. Om Prakash Singh, and other armed forces deputed for assisting in the raid were also present along with the raiding team. It has been further alleged in the FIR that the raiding party found a plastic manufacturing unit being run by the occupant at the alleged premises, where theft of electricity was being committed. While committing the offence, electricity was being consumed from an LT line through illegal means, and in this regard, several articles were seized. As per the FIR, the appellant was alleged to have been running the said plastic manufacturing unit by illegally using electricity at village Janpur, Bodh Gaya, in Gaya District. According to the Electricity Department, the appellant’s electricity connection had already been disconnected on account of non-payment of dues, and due to this reason, he started using electricity by fixing a toka on the LT line in an illegal manner. His electricity connection pertained to his godown situated at Godam Road, Bodh Gaya Market. In the FIR, the loss caused to the Electricity Department on account of the alleged act of the appellant was assessed to be Rs. 43,77,888/-. The FIR further reveals that at the time of raid, one person, namely Anil Pandey, was found present at the alleged premises. According to the informant, he was the caretaker of the appellant and was apprehended at the spot. The raiding party seized all relevant articles, the details of which are mentioned in the seizure list (Exhibit-2) attached to the FIR. On the basis of a written application filed by Gauri Shankar Prasad, an Executive Engineer of the Electricity Department, a formal FIR bearing Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 158 of 2011 was registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the apprehended co-accused Anil Pandey and the appellant, Md. Maksood Alam.
2.1. In the seizure list, several articles seized from the spot, such as a starter, four motors of different HP capacities, and PVC wires, were shown as recovered. As per the seizure
Prosecution failed to establish the appellant's connection to the premises where alleged electricity theft occurred, leading to the reversal of conviction.
The prosecution must adhere to mandatory statutory provisions regarding searches and seizures; failure to do so undermines the validity of electricity theft convictions.
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses and lack of substantive evidence.
The prosecution must prove the accused's involvement in an alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt; failure results in acquittal.
The accused is guilty of electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, with the burden of proof on him to rebut the prosecution's established case.
The court affirmed the conviction for electricity theft based on credible evidence despite the defendant's claims of procedural impropriety.
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.