##PAGE1##

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. of 2026 ( arising out of SLP(Crl) No(s) . 19405-19408/2025 )

JODHPUR DISCOMS Appellant(s)

VERSUS LALIT SONI & ANR. ETC. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, Jodhpur Discoms, is in the appeals challenging the order(s) passed by the High Court discharging the below named respondents from the charges under Sections 135-138, 150 (1) (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘the Act, 2003’) arising out of FIR No.420/2012 registered at P.S. APT (Prevention of Electricity Theft, Rural), Jodhpur who were all working on the post mentioned against Signature Not Verified them:

Digitally signed by NISHA KHULBEY Date: 2026.11.02 Reason: a. Lalit Soni, respondent no.1 in SLP(Crl.) No.19405/2025 (Executive Engineer);

##PAGE2##

b. Nema Ram, respondent no.1 in SLP(Crl.) No.19406/2025 (Assistant Engineer);

c. Sur Singh, respondent no.1 in SLP(Crl.) No.19407/2025 (helper)

and;

d. Vikash Jhanjadiya, respondent no.1 in SLP(Crl.) No. 19408/2025 (Junior Engineer).

3. One, Manish Sharma, Assistant Engineer (CVS), Jodhpur Discom, Jodhpur, who is the complainant herein, submitted a written application/ complaint to the S.H.O, Electricity Theft Prevention Police Station, Jodhpur Rural, Jodhpur, seeking registration of an FIR against the above mentioned respondents/ accused persons under the Act, 2003 in accordance with the Vigilance Investigation Report No.03700/14 dated 10.07.2012 and J.I.R. No. 552/36 dated 10.07.2012 to the effect that consumer, namely, Balim Steel Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ‘Company’) and its representatives, have committed theft of electricity by tampering the meter and in the said process, the accused persons have abetted the said Company to commit theft of electricity.

##PAGE3##

4. Upon investigation, charge sheet was filed and the learned Special Court, Electricity Act Cases also framed the charges and took cognizance of the offence vide its orders dated 05.02.2013 and

18.07.2014.

5. The consumer was said to have received a profit of Rs. 12,99,64,800/- by committing theft of electricity out of which, a sum of Rs.8,15,08,737/- still remains unpaid.

6. As against the Special Court’s/ Trial Court’s order of framing charges against the private respondents, revision petitions were preferred before the High Court which have been decided by a common order allowing the said revision petitions in favour of the above named respondents. However, in respect of some other accused, who are also the employees of the appellant/

##PAGE4##

company, Jodhpur Discoms, namely, Pappulal Kumawat, Pappu Meena, Harlal Ram, Harchandlal and Rajender Kumar, their revision petitions have been dismissed.

7. In the impugned order(s), the High Court has set aside the order taking cognizance in respect of below named respondents on the ground that before initiating prosecution against them, sanctions under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) have not been obtained and thus, the prosecution is not competent.

a. Lalit Soni, respondent no.1 in SLP(Crl.) No.19405/2025 was an Executive Engineer;

b. Nema Ram, respondent no.1 in SLP(Crl.) No.19406/2025 was an Assistant Engineer;

c. Vikash Jhanjadiya, respondent no.1 in SLP(Crl.) No. 19408/2025 was the Junior Engineer.

8. However, in respect of respondent no.1, Sur Singh in SLP(Crl.) No.19407/2025, the charges have been quashed on merits finding that the said respondent was only a helper and the entire charge sheet does not contain any such material against him which can be said to be forming the basic ingredients of the offence alleged against him.

##PAGE5##

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

10. Admittedly, the respondents, Lalit Soni in SLP(Crl.) No.19405/2025, Nema Ram in SLP(Crl.) No.19406/2025 and Vikash Jhanjadiya in SLP(Crl.) No. 19408/2025 are the employees of Jodhpur Discoms and they are neither appointed nor can be terminated by the Stat