Patna HC Quashes Electricity Theft FIR Where Meter Was Never Tampered and Connection Never Cut

Patna High Court holds that unpaid electricity dues create only civil liability, not criminal theft under Section 135, when no meter tampering or disconnection is proved.

The Patna High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against a Nawada resident, Md. Shahid Imam, finding that neither the FIR nor the inspection report accompanying it showed any meter tampering, sealed meter, or actual severance of the electrical connection. Justice Jitendra Kumar, sitting singly, held that consuming electricity while owing dues to the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. (SBPDCL) may attract civil recovery proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, but it does not, by itself, constitute the offence of theft of electricity under Section 135, which requires proof of dishonest intention. The court left SBPDCL free to recover the outstanding charges through lawful means, including by invoking Section 126 if the conditions for that provision are met.

The FIR and the Allegations Against the Petitioner

The FIR, registered as Nawadah Town P.S. Case No. 363 of 2022, arose from a raid by officials of the Electricity Department at the domestic premises of Md. Shahid Imam at Village Islam Nagar, Par Nawadah, District Nawada. The written report alleged that his domestic electricity connection, Consumer Number 100453396 with a sanctioned load of 1 kWh, had been disconnected on 4 January 2021 owing to overdue charges of Rs. 5,39,126/-. Despite this disconnection, the officials found electricity being consumed at the premises without payment of dues and without obtaining an RC receipt.

SBPDCL's case rested substantially on the meter readings. At the time of the claimed disconnection on 4 January 2021, the meter read 59,425 kWh. When officials raided the premises on 19 April 2022, the reading had climbed to 71,412 kWh. On the basis of this gap, SBPDCL claimed it had suffered a loss of Rs. 1,96,811/- on account of unauthorised consumption, as reflected in the inspection and seizure report annexed to the written complaint. The FIR charged Imam under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

What Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act Actually Cover

Before examining the facts, Justice Jitendra Kumar traced the statutory distinction between Section 126 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, two provisions that are frequently conflated in electricity-related FIRs.

Section 135 falls under Part XIV of the Act, which deals with offences and penalties. Its opening words are “whoever, dishonestly” does any of the specified acts. Dishonesty, as the court explained by reference to the Supreme Court's ruling in Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108, is a state of mind: the accused must have acted with intent to deceive, to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. Mens rea is therefore a necessary ingredient. Conviction under Section 135 carries imprisonment extendable to three years, a fine, or both.

Section 126, by contrast, sits under Part XII of the Act, which deals with investigation and enforcement. It is triggered when a consumer uses electricity in violation of the terms and conditions of supply — what the statute calls “unauthorised use of electricity” — even in the absence of any criminal intention. The assessing officer under that provision passes a provisional assessment order, serves a notice on the consumer, and ultimately fixes the charges payable. The consumer may accept the assessment and deposit the amount within seven days, or appeal against the final order under Section 127. The court noted that Sections 126 and 127 together form a complete code for cases that do not fall within Section 135.

The Supreme Court in Seetaram Rice Mill had put the distinction plainly: where a consumer uses excessive load beyond the contracted load simpliciter, the matter falls under Section 126. Where a consumer, by means such as bypassing the meter or tampering with it, abstracts energy with dishonest intention, Section 135 applies. The two provisions “operate in different and distinct fields” and have “no common premise in law.”

Justice Jitendra Kumar also referred to the Chhattisgarh High Court's 2026 decision in Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Dinesh Chandra, (2026 SCC OnLine Chh 10813), which reiterated that dishonesty — defined in Section 24 of the Penal Code, 1860 as acting with intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss — must be established before a person can be punished under Section 135.

What the Inspection Report Actually Showed

Having laid out the statutory framework, Justice Jitendra Kumar turned to the material produced by SBPDCL itself. His conclusion was direct: neither the FIR nor the inspection notes contained any reference to tampering of the meter. The inspection report included a specific column for meter tampering, but that column recorded nothing adverse against the petitioner.

There was no mention that the electricity connection had been physically cut or that the meter had been sealed at the time of the claimed disconnection in January 2021. When the raiding party arrived on 19 April 2022, the meter was found in running condition, with its reading incrementing normally as consumption continued. No interpolation in the meter was recorded. The petitioner's advocate pointed to these very inspection notes to argue that the connection had never actually been disconnected, and the court found that argument consistent with the documentary record.

SBPDCL's counsel defended the FIR by pointing to the meter reading gap: 59,425 kWh at the time of alleged disconnection and 71,412 kWh at the time of the raid, a gap of 11,987 kWh over roughly fifteen months. But the court observed that this gap, by itself, only established that electricity had been consumed during the period. It did not establish that the connection had been severed and then reconnected, or that the petitioner had employed any dishonest means to draw power. A meter running in the ordinary way, without any sign of tampering, pointed in the opposite direction.

Civil Liability Is Not Criminal Liability

The petitioner's counsel conceded, at the hearing, that there was an outstanding due of electricity charges. The court accepted this. What it did not accept was that non-payment of dues, standing alone, could found an FIR for theft under Section 135.

Justice Jitendra Kumar recorded that the claim by SBPDCL that the petitioner's connection had been disconnected on 4 January 2021 was not supported by the material on record. With no proved disconnection, there was no basis for saying the petitioner was drawing electricity through any unauthorised or surreptitious means. The meter was running as it was. The petitioner was using electricity bonafide. The only thing against him was the unpaid balance.

The court held: there may be civil liability, but there is no criminal liability arising from the alleged facts and circumstances. The FIR was therefore liable to be quashed.

Order

Justice Jitendra Kumar allowed Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 645 of 2022 and quashed FIR No. 363 of 2022 registered at Nawadah Town Police Station under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The court clarified that SBPDCL retains the liberty to recover the electricity charges from the petitioner in accordance with law. The court also noted that SBPDCL may invoke Section 126 of the Electricity Act if the conditions precedent for that provision are fulfilled. The judgment was delivered on 22 June 2026 and uploaded on 7 August 2026.