Chhattisgarh HC Reverses Electricity Theft Acquittal, Holds Panchnama by Officials Carries Presumption of Correctness

The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside a trial court's acquittal in an electricity theft case, ruling that official panchnamas carry a presumption of correctness that the accused failed to rebut.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has reversed the acquittal of Dinesh Chandra, a resident of Village Bansula, District Janjgir-Champa, who was charged with theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, sitting singly, found that the Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), District Janjgir-Champa, had committed patent illegality by disbelieving official panchnamas solely on the ground that no independent witness had been examined. The court convicted Chandra and, after hearing counsel on sentence on 17 June 2026, directed him to deposit Rs. 43,623/- as theft charges with the Electricity Board and Rs. 5,000/- as fine before the trial court within two months, failing which he would undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

What the Vigilance Team Found on 10 March 2014

On 10 March 2014 at approximately 2 o'clock, a vigilance team comprising R.K. Acharya (Executive Engineer), Vinod Kumar Mahilange (Assistant Lineman), and Ramji Pandit (Assistant Lineman) inspected the premises of Dinesh Chandra in the presence of his wife, Smt. Vimla Bai. The team found that Chandra's electricity connection, bearing Meter B.P. No. 1001619924, had already been disconnected for non-payment of electricity charges. Despite the disconnection, electricity was being used by hooking a wire directly from the Low Tension (LT) line. A fan, cooler, television, water pump, bulb, and CFL bulb were running, with an illegal consumption of 1,606 watts recorded.

The team prepared a Panchnama (Ex. P/3), an Inspection Report (Ex. P/4), a Seizure Memo (Ex. P/5), a Map (Ex. P/6), and a calculation sheet (Ex. P/7). Form No. 5 (Ex. P/8) was issued to the accused, assessing the charge at Rs. 43,623/-. Vimla Bai, described as the representative of the accused, signed all these documents. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) then filed a criminal complaint under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Special Court at Janjgir-Champa, seeking the assessed amount as compensation and imposition of penalty.

The Trial Court's Acquittal and Its Reasoning

The Special Judge, after recording the evidence of five prosecution witnesses and exhibiting documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/10, acquitted Chandra by judgment dated 3 November 2016. The trial court assigned three principal reasons for acquittal. First, the prosecution had not examined any independent witness, and therefore the panchnama and inspection report could not be relied upon to prove guilt. Second, the mandatory provisions under the Act of 2003, particularly under Section 126 and Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Rules, 2006, had not been followed by the complainant. Third, no revenue document establishing the respondent's ownership or possession of the premises where the meter was installed had been placed on record, and no one had directly seen him using electricity after hooking into the LT lines.

CSPDCL challenged the acquittal in ACQA No. 714 of 2019 before the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

Counsel for CSPDCL, Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, pressed three grounds. He argued that Section 135(2)(a) of the Act expressly authorises officers of a distribution licensee to enter, inspect, break open and search premises where unauthorised electricity use is suspected, eliminating any requirement for independent witnesses. He further submitted that Chandra had signed documents Ex. P/3 to Ex. P/6 without objection, and that his wife's presence as his representative was admitted by Chandra himself in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination. On ownership, Patel argued that the electricity connection stood in Chandra's name; proving title through revenue records was unnecessary where there was no title dispute. He also submitted that Form No. 3 is required only for inspections after sunset, and Form No. 6 only when the accused objects after receiving Form No. 5 — neither condition arose here since the inspection took place before sunset and no objection was lodged.

Counsel for Chandra, Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, argued that the prosecution's failure to examine independent witnesses was fatal and supported the trial court's finding. He relied on the principle that where two views are possible and the trial court has taken the view favouring the accused, an appellate court should not ordinarily interfere with a reasoned acquittal.

How the Court Reasoned Through Each Ground

Justice Vyas began by reading Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He held that the two sections operate in distinct spheres: Section 126 deals with assessment of dues on detection of unauthorised electricity use, while Section 135 creates a criminal offence of theft and provides for punishment. The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Orion Metal Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6547 of 2019, decided on 21 August 2019) to hold that non-compliance with assessment procedures under Section 126 or Rule 7 of the Rules of 2006 does not vitiate a prosecution launched under Section 135. On that basis, the trial court's finding at paragraph 17 of its judgment — that failure to follow Section 126 and Rule 7 was fatal — was quashed.

On the panchnama, the court drew on the Supreme Court's decision in Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Ashwani Kumar, (2010) 7 SCC 569. That judgment holds that a report prepared by electricity board officers in discharge of their official duties cannot be straightaway disbelieved unless there is definite and cogent material on record to show it is false or fabricated. The presumption lies in favour of the document, not against it; the onus shifts to the person challenging it. Justice Vyas applied this principle directly: Chandra had led no evidence in rebuttal, had not contested the genuineness of the panchnama, and had himself admitted in his Section 313 statement that Vimla Bai was his wife and was present at the time of inspection. In the court's assessment, the trial court's decision to discard the panchnama for want of an independent witness was therefore perverse.

The court extended this reasoning on presumption by reference to the Supreme Court's analysis in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16, which explains that a presumption of law shifts the burden on to the accused and is not displaced merely by denial. The court held that once the prosecution had established the factual basis for the presumption — an official inspection report, a signed panchnama, and documentary evidence of disconnection and hooking — it was incumbent on Chandra to rebut those facts with credible evidence. He had done neither.

On ownership, Justice Vyas held that CSPDCL had exhibited a disconnection notice dated 3 February 2014 (Ex. P/2) issued in Chandra's name. Chandra had not disputed that notice or the service connection number mentioned in it. Under Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003, a “consumer” includes any person whose premises are connected for receiving electricity with the works of the licensee. Since the meter had been installed and the connection issued in his name, proof of title through revenue records was unnecessary. The trial court's insistence on revenue documents was held to be an error in law.

Applying the principles laid down in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, 2024 (8) SCC 149, Justice Vyas identified that the acquittal suffered from patent perversity, was based on a misreading of the evidence, and that no two reasonable views were possible — only the view consistent with guilt was available on the record. These are the three conditions the Supreme Court requires before an appellate court can reverse an acquittal, and the High Court found all three satisfied.

The Sentence Hearing

After setting aside the acquittal and recording conviction on 15 June 2026, Justice Vyas listed the matter for hearing on sentence on 17 June 2026, in compliance with Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. / Section 258(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

At the sentence hearing, counsel for Chandra submitted that this was his first offence, that he was over 50 years of age, and that a jail sentence would adversely affect his family. Counsel for CSPDCL opposed leniency, pointing out that illegal hooking causes loss not only to the distribution company but also to the public exchequer, given the cost of generating electricity.

Justice Vyas considered Section 137 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides imprisonment of either description for a term extending to three years, or fine, or both, for offences under the Act.

Order

The acquittal appeal, ACQA No. 714 of 2019, was allowed. The order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), District Janjgir-Champa on 3 November 2016 was set aside, and Dinesh Chandra was convicted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

On sentence, the court directed as follows:

• Chandra shall deposit Rs. 43,623/- (the amount assessed as the charge for theft of electricity) before the Electricity Board within two months.
• Chandra shall also deposit a fine of Rs. 5,000/- before the learned trial court within two months, which the trial court shall pay to CSPDCL as compensation.
• If Chandra fails to deposit either amount within the stipulated period, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months, in addition to remaining liable to deposit the fine of Rs. 5,000/- and the amount of Rs. 43,623/-.

The judgment was reserved on 8 May 2026 and pronounced on 15 June 2026. The sentence order was passed on 17 June 2026.