C.g. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.01.07 13:52:36 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 179 of 2014

¶6

C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Earlier C.G. State Electricity Board, Through - Executive Enginner, (O And M) Division Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶7

... Appellant/Complainant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through – Station House Officer, P.S. Pandri Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.,

¶10

2 - Narayan Ji Patel S/o Vastaram Patel Aged About 56 Years R/o New Timber Market Fafadih, P.S. Devendra Nagar, Raipur C.G.,

¶11

3 - Navin Patel S/o Khetaram Patel Aged About 49 Years R/o New Timber Market Fafadih , P.S. Devendra Nagar, Raipur C.G. (Accused)

¶12

... Non-applicants / Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Shri Amiya Kant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent 1/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L. For Respondents 2 & 3 : Shri Mayank Gupta, Advocate

¶14

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

06/01/2026

¶17

This Acquittal Appeal filed by the appellant / C.G.State Power Distribution Com. Limited (for short, the appellant Company) under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003) & 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal (Electricity) Case No. 93/2007, whereby the learned trial trial Court acquitted the respondents No.2 & 3 herein of the charge under Section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘Electricity Act’).

¶18

2

¶19

Brief facts as projected by the appellant/CGPDCL are that on 17.06.2005, vigilance team of appellant Company inspected the premises of M/s Umiya Board and Paper Mill, Village Saddu, P.S. Pandri, Distt. Raipur (for short, the Mill) and found that accused persons / respondents No.2 & 3 were using the electricity by theft in their Mill premises by cutting the armored multi-core PVC cable from 10 core cable, disconnecting from the meter box of 33 KV CTPT unit. The accused persons were also found in illegal use of electricity by theft by tampering with the reading meter causing loss to the appellant Company. Inspection report was prepared by the appellant Company vide Ex.P.1 and on the basis of Inspection report, a written report vide Ex.P.3 was made and then F.I.R. vide Ex.P.4 under Crime No.129/05 has been registered against the accused persons. Thereafter, vide seizure memos Ex.P.6, 7 & 8, Police seized the Meter, wires and other materials.

¶20

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents No. 2 & 3 before the Special judge under the Electricity Act, The respondents abjured their guilt and claimed trial.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant/company submits that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.2 & 3 herein of the said charge by recording perverse findings. He further submits that premises of the Mill of the respondents was duly inspected by the appellant Company and found tampering with the meter and thereby committed electricity theft. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses duly proved that electricity theft was committed by the said respondents and despite that the trial Court has

¶22

3

¶23

not properly appreciated by the evidence on record and committed error in acquitting the respondents No.2 & 3. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶24

On the other hand, learned State Counsel supports the arguments of the appellant Company, whereas the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that the the electricity theft cannot be proved on the basis of the inspection report and seizure memos prepared by the inspection team. He further submits that the MRI report, which would have proved when and how electricity theft was taking place has also not been produced, and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that electricity theft had been committed.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Company and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶26

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:-

¶27

While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶28

In Manoj Rujani v. Superintending Engineer, M.P.E.B. & Anr., reported

¶29

in AIR 2006 MP 100, it has been clearly laid down that the inspection

¶30

4

¶31

report must mention the manner of tampering and the extent of loss incurred by the electricity department, and that merely on the basis of inspection, the offence of theft cannot be said to be proved.

¶32

As regards the involvement of the respondents in the crime in question, P.W.1 Harsh Gautam admitted that an MRI report, which would indicate the date and time of tampering with the meter readings and would also determine the period of alleged power theft, had been prepared. However, he stated that he was not aware whether the said MRI report was submitted or not. According to P.W.3 Satyanarayan Agrawal, before he arrived at the premises of the mill, Ex.P-1 inspection form had already been prepared. The evidence of P.W.2 S.K. Chakravarthy discloses that an MRI scan of the electricity meter was performed and that the number of times the meter was tampered with was mentioned in the MRI report. He further stated that from the MRI report he became aware of the alleged power theft, but the said report has not been produced in the present case.

¶33

From the above evidence, it is clear that the meter was scanned through an MRI report, no such MRI report has been produced in this case. Further, no member of the alleged MRT cell has been examined. In the absence of production of the MRI report and supporting evidence, it cannot be conclusively held that the meter was tampered with so as to hold the accused persons/respondents No.2 and 3 liable.

¶34

After considering the material available on record as well as the detailed judgment passed by the learned trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.2 & 3 of the charge under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act is just and proper and does not call for any

¶35

5

¶36

interference.

¶37