Chhattisgarh HC Reverses Electricity Theft Acquittal, Convicts Accused Under Section 135 of Electricity Act

The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that official inspection reports carry a presumption of correctness and absence of independent witnesses is not fatal to prosecution under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, sitting singly at the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, allowed an acquittal appeal filed by the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited and convicted Dinesh Chandra for theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Special Judge, Janjgir Champa had acquitted Chandra in November 2016, holding that the prosecution had not examined independent witnesses and had not complied with mandatory procedural provisions. The High Court found those reasons perverse. It held that an official panchnama prepared in discharge of duty carries a legal presumption of correctness which an accused must rebut with cogent evidence — and Chandra led no such evidence. On the question of sentence, heard on 17 June 2026, the court directed deposit of Rs. 43,623 and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with a default clause of three months' simple imprisonment.

The Incident and the Trial Court's Acquittal

On 10 March 2014, a vigilance team of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited visited the house of Dinesh Chandra at Village Bansula, District Janjgir-Champa. The team found that Chandra's electricity connection, bearing meter B.P. No. 1001619924, had already been disconnected by the company for non-payment of dues. Despite the disconnection, the team found a hook wire drawn directly from the Low Tension line to a switch board inside the house. A fan, cooler, television, water pump, bulb, and CFL bulb were running. The team recorded an illegal consumption of 1,606 Watts.

A panchnama (Ex. P/3), inspection report (Ex. P/4), seizure memo (Ex. P/5), and map (Ex. P/6) were prepared on the spot. Chandra's wife, Smt. Vimla Bai, signed these documents as the representative present at the time of inspection. The company assessed the charge for theft at Rs. 43,623 and issued Form No. 5 (Ex. P/8) to Chandra. A complaint was then filed before the Special Judge designated under the Electricity Act, 2003 at Janjgir Champa.

The prosecution examined five witnesses, including R.K. Acharya, Executive Engineer (PW/2), who led the inspection team, and H.K. Pradhan, Assistant Engineer (PW/5), who prepared the provisional assessment. Documents from Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/10 were exhibited. Chandra examined no witness and exhibited no document. Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the allegations and claimed false implication, though he admitted that Vimla Bai was his wife and was present at inspection.

The Special Judge acquitted Chandra on two main grounds. First, the prosecution had not examined any independent witness, which the trial court treated as fatal to the credibility of the panchnama. Second, the court found that mandatory provisions of the Act of 2003, specifically the requirements under Section 126 and Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Rules, 2006, had not been followed. The trial court also held that no revenue document was produced to show that Chandra owned or occupied the premises where the hook was found.

Why the Trial Court's Reasoning Was Held Perverse

The High Court examined each of the three grounds on which the acquittal rested and found all three legally unsound.

On the absence of independent witnesses: The court read Section 135(2)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to hold that officers of the Distribution Licensee are authorised to enter, inspect, break open, and search premises where they have reason to believe electricity is or has been used unauthorisedly. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Ashwani Kumar, (2010) 7 SCC 569, which held that a report prepared by electricity board officers in discharge of official duty cannot be straightaway disbelieved unless definite and cogent material is placed on record to show the document is false or fabricated. In Chandra's case, the defence produced nothing to rebut the documents. R.K. Acharya (PW/2) had confirmed in examination-in-chief that the panchnama was prepared on the spot and signed by Vimla Bai. The trial court's finding that the panchnama was unreliable merely because no independent witness was examined was held to be perverse.

The court also drew on the presumption principle articulated by the Supreme Court in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16, which held that once a factual basis for raising a presumption of law exists, it is obligatory for the court to raise it and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut it with evidence showing a reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact. Applying that logic to the panchnama, the High Court held that in the absence of any rebuttal from Chandra, the trial court should have presumed the correctness of the inspection record.

On the alleged non-compliance with Section 126 and Rule 7 of the Rules of 2006: The High Court held that Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 operates in an entirely different sphere from Section 135. Section 126 deals with civil assessment of dues on detection of unauthorised use of electricity. Section 135 creates a criminal offence of theft of electricity and carries penal consequences. The court relied on West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Orion Metal Pvt. Ltd., AIR Online 2019 SC 982, in which the Supreme Court held that both provisions work in different fields and can operate simultaneously where the facts disclose theft. The court held that even presuming non-compliance with Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Rules, 2006 — which deals with provisional assessment of dues — such non-compliance does not vitiate proceedings under Section 135 of the Act of 2003. The trial court's finding on this point was quashed.

On the absence of revenue documents to prove ownership: The High Court found this ground equally untenable. The company had exhibited a disconnection notice dated 3 February 2014 (Ex. P/2) issued in Chandra's name for non-payment of dues. The electricity meter's service connection was registered in his name. Chandra did not dispute either fact. The court read Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which defines “consumer” as any person whose premises are connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee. Chandra's registered connection was sufficient to establish him as a consumer and to draw the inference that the meter was installed at his premises. The trial court's insistence on revenue records of title was held to be an error of law.

Reversal of Acquittal and the Standard Applied

The court set out the conditions under which an appellate court may reverse an acquittal, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, 2024 (8) SCC 149. An acquittal can be reversed where it suffers from patent perversity, is based on misreading or omission to consider material evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with guilt emerges from the record.

Justice Vyas found all three conditions met. The trial court had ignored the panchnama, the inspection report, the corroborating oral evidence of the inspection team, Chandra's own admission that his wife was present, the disconnection notice in his name, and the fact that Chandra led no rebuttal evidence at all. The court held that <“no two reasonable views are possible” and that only the view consistent with guilt was supportable on the record. Exercising the power under Section 386 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 427 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the court reversed the acquittal and convicted Chandra under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The court noted that Section 135 read with Section 137 of the Act of 2003 provides for punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term extending to three years, or fine, or both.

Sentence on the Quantum Hearing

After convicting Chandra on 15 June 2026, the court listed the matter for hearing on sentence on 17 June 2026 under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C./Section 258(2) of BNSS.

On the sentence hearing, counsel for Chandra submitted that this was his first offence, that he was over 50 years of age, that a jail sentence would adversely affect his entire family, and that no further electricity-related offence had been registered against him since the 2014 incident. Counsel for the company opposed, submitting that electricity theft causes loss not only to the distribution company but to the nation at large, as electricity generation requires significant mineral and financial resources from the public exchequer.

Order

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas sentenced Dinesh Chandra in the following terms:

Chandra must deposit Rs. 43,623 — the assessed charge for theft of electricity — with the Electricity Board, and a fine of Rs. 5,000 before the learned trial court, within two months. The trial court is directed to pay Rs. 43,623 to the appellant company by way of compensation.

If Chandra fails to deposit the amounts within the stipulated period, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months, in addition to the obligation to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000 and the compensation amount of Rs. 43,623.

The acquittal appeal, ACQA No. 714 of 2019, was allowed. The order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, Janjgir Champa on 3 November 2016 was set aside.