IMPORTANT POINT
In view of amendment in provisions of Section 50 of Indian Electricity Act, Deputy Executive Engineer, member of raiding party was justified and competent to lodge electricity theft report with police.

Headnote:Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 39 and 44 - Illegal abstraction of electricity by theft - Appellants had sanctioned electricity load for their manufacturing unit of toughening of glass - Squad of State Electricity Board conducted raid on information that theft of electric energy was being committed - Actual consumption of power used for main furnaces and blower was not being recorded by tampering with meters - Abnormal difference was found in G-7 form and reading recorded by officers of Electricity Board - Trial Court convicted appellants and sentenced them to three months imprisonment and fine - Sessions Court upheld conviction and sentence - High Court declined to interfere in revision - Appeal - Trial Court rightly found that complainant, Dy. Executive Engineer incharge of raiding party was competent and justified in lodging complaint in terms of amended provisions of Section 50 of the Act - It did not matter that Board found theft of electricity to extent of Rs. 17,35,453/- where as its claim was decreed by Civil Court only for Rs. 3,07,999/ - In a case of surprise raid 48 hours’ notice to appellant was not envisaged - Conviction could not be interfered with - Considering large scale of theft of electricity, Court should invariably impose heavy fine - Offence was committed 17 years ago and appellants had undergone part of sentence, instead of compelling them to serve remaining sentence, fine increased from Rs. 40,000/- each against two appellants to Rs. 3 lacs each and against Rs. 20,000/- against third appellant to Rs. 2 lacs.
       Held : It was submitted by the appellants that the complainant was not authorized to file FIR. The Trial Court had considered this argument of the appellants. The Trial Court has correctly mentioned in its judgment that by the amendment in the provisions of Section 50, the word Government or a State Electricity Board or an Electric Inspector or a person aggrieved by same has been amended and the officers of the State Electricity Board or a person aggrieved by the theft are authorized by the notification to lodge a complaint. The complainant was fully justified in filing the complaint. We do not find any merit in this argument of the appellants.(Para 20)
       The appellants submitted that there is manifest error in the judgment of the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court, by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment on the ground that the theft of electricity to the extent of an amount of Rs.17,35,453.52 was extracted by the appellants, whereas, the Civil Court had come to the conclusion and passed the decree in favour of the respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Board in Civil Suit No.156/92 for only Rs.3,07,999.74. (Para 21)
       On evaluation of the entire evidence and documents on record when the case of theft has been fully proved, then whether the theft of energy was to the extent of Rs.17,35,453.52 or Rs.3,07,999.74, really makes no difference, as there was theft of energy on a large scale for a long time. The appellants cannot take advantage of the fact that the respondents had not appealed against the judgment of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, who had passed the decree for Rs.3,07,999.74. (Para 22)
       The appellants had also alleged that 48 hours notice was not given to the appellants before conducting the raid.(Para 23)
       The Trial Court had dealt with the aspect of giving 48 hours notice before conducting the raid. In a case of a surprise raid 48 hours notice to the appellants is not envisaged by the Legislature and otherwise also it would have been counter productive, because there was a strong possibility of obliterating and/or destroying the entire evidence to connect the appellants with the crime.(Para 24)
       In our view, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment so far as conviction of the appellants under Sections 39 and 44 of the Act is concerned and consequently, we uphold the impugned judgment as far as conviction of the appellants is concerned.(Para 28)
       Large scale theft of electricity is a very alarming problem faced by all the State Electricity Boards in our country, which is causing loss to the State revenue running in hundreds of crores every year. In our considered view, after proper adjudication of the cases of all those who are found to be guilty of the offence of committing theft of electricity, apart from the sentence of conviction, the Court should invariably impose heavy fine making theft of electricity a wholly non-profitable venture. The most effective step to curb this tendency perhaps could be to discontinue supply of electricity to those consumers for temporarily or permanently who have been caught abstracting electricity in a clandestine manner on more than one occasion. The legislature may consider incorporating this suggestion as a form of punishment by amending Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act of 1910.(Para 30)
       On consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the appellants have already served out a part of the sentence and instead of compelling them to serve out the remaining sentence after lapse of 17 years, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to increase the fine from Rs.40,000/- each to Rs.3,00,000/- each in case of appellants number 1 and 3 (Jagmodhan Mehatabsing Gujaral and Harcharanpalsing Nanda respectively) and from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 39 of the Act in case of appellant number 2 (Mrs. Rupender Kaur Harcharanpalsing). The appellants are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 44 of the Act.(Para 31)

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 23.1.2006 in Criminal Revision Application No.458/2005 and Criminal Revision Application No.11 of 2006.

3. The appellants in this appeal had been convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, by the judgment dated 21.12.1996 under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and were also directed to pay a fine. These appellants were directed to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. Appellants number 1 & 3 were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- each and appellant number 2 to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 39 of the Act.

4. The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, filed an appeal before the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune being Appeal No. 12 of 1997. The learned Additional Sessions Judge again evaluated the entire evidence and examined the documents on record and reached the same finding and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.

5. The Criminal Revision filed against the said judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide judgment dated 23.1.2006. Both the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court upheld the decision of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

6. The brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under.

7. Appellant number 1 was the Managing Director of M/s. Nanda Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd., located at Gat No. 679/680 Valu, Taluka Bhor and appellants number 2 and 3 are the partners of the partnership firm M/s. Technoframes. Both the industries were adjacent to each other.

8. The Consumer number of M/s. Nanda Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. is 17941-900102-3 with sanctioned load CD 225 KVA for toughening of glass. The Consumer number of M/s. Technoframes is 1-416 with Meter No. 9030013/TPHR 605 dated 10.7.1986. The sanctioned load of Consumer number 1-416 is 60 H.P. for toughening of glass.

9. Upon receiving information that there was theft of electric energy being committed by the appellants at these two electric connections for their industry at night, the complainant V. G. Kokane, the then Dy. Executive Engineer and in-charge of flying squad of MSEB and Executive Engineer, Kadam with their other testing staff etc. and two Panchas went to M/s. Nanda Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Technoframes in the intervening night of 3/4.10.1989 for the purpose of inspection and checking.

10. It was found that the power of 225 KVA was sanctioned to accused no. 1 on contract demand with H.T. metering for the purposes of recording consumption. One iron box was provided for Trivector Meter. The box was closed and duly sealed under the seal of M.S.E.B. There was CTPC unit provided at D.P. Pole from which the wires were brought into the Meter Box through a conduit pipe so that they could not be tampered. The appellants dislocated the conduit pipe at the bend and socket. They had cut and removed voltage wire of one phase and current wire of another phase so that actual consumption could not be recorded by the meter. Similarly, the appellants by tampering meters ensured that actual consumption of power used for main furnaces and blower was not recorded from December, 1987 so that there could not be any difficulty in putting explanation, if any, called upon by the M.S.E.B. The daily consumption of power was to be recorded by the consumer in prescribed G-7 form, but it was found that it was written only once every month. On 3.5.1988 while it was inspected by the Testing Division abruptly, abnormal difference was found between the entries noted by the consumer in G-7 form and the reading recorded by the officers of the M.S.E.B. The copies of these forms were attached to the complaint.

11. In the intervening night of 3/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1048

IMPORTANT POINTIn view of amendment in provisions of Section 50 of Indian Electricity Act, Deputy Executive Engineer, member of raiding party was justified and competent to lodge electricity theft report with police.

IMPORTANT POINT
In view of amendment in provisions of Section 50 of Indian Electricity Act, Deputy Executive Engineer, member of raiding party was justified and competent to lodge electricity theft report with police.