The bar on civil court jurisdiction under electricity law applies only when criminal proceedings for theft have been formally initiated and cognizance has been taken by a Special Court. In the absence of an FIR or complaint, the civil court retains jurisdiction to entertain a consumer's suit.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Defendants are in second appeal, aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

2. The issue involved in the present regular second appeal relates to jurisdiction of Civil Court qua disputes between electricity supplier and the consumer wherein the supplier alleges theft of electricity against consumer.

3. Counsel for the appellants claims that the issue is covered in favour of the electricity supplier in terms of ratio of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in RSA No.4181 of 2016 titled as ‘ Mahesh Kumar vs. Sub Divisional Officers and another ’ decided on 14.05.2025.

4. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through records of the case and the ratio of law laid down by Division Bench in Mahesh Kumar’s case (supra).

5. Keeping in view conflicting decisions by different Benches of this Court, the following question was formulated by the Single Bench to be adjudicated by the Larger Bench:

“As to whether the bar contained in Section 145 of the Act, on the jurisdiction of the civil Court, would be restricted only to proceedings arising from an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 126 and an appellate authority under Section 127, or, in view of the language contained in Sections 154 and 155, (read with Section 145 of the Act), such bar would extend to matters falling under Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Act also?”

6. The Division Bench answered the issue, observing as under:

“42. Now since sub-Sections (5) and (6), as embodied in Section 154 of the Act of 2003, provisions whereof become re-extracted hereinafter, do confer jurisdiction upon a Special Court also to determine the civil liability of the errant concerned, whereafter compensation can also be settled against the errant concerned.

“x x x x

(5) The [Special Court shall] determine the civil liability against a consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of energy or the exact period of theft if determined whichever is less and the amount of civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of civil court.

(6) In case the civil liability so determined finally by the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, shall be refunded by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order of the Special Court together with interest at the prevailing Reserve Bank of India prime lending rate for the period from the date of such deposit till the date of payment.”

43. However, the conferment of the said jurisdiction, naturally has to be exercised, rather only after a conclusive and binding verdict of conviction becoming recorded against the errant concerned, and, not prior thereto. Conspicuously so, if there is a parallel determination of both civil and criminal liabilities, therebys if the civil liability is determined prior to the determination of the apposite criminal liability. As such, therebys the Special Court while trying an offender qua the ably triable offences, rather would become presented with a fait accompli. Moreover, in case there