Presumption Against Consumer Not Set In Motion Where There Is Inability To Prove Use Of Artificial Means: Supreme Court Acquits Director In Electricity Theft Case

While acquitting a Director of a Company in an electricity theft case registered under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Supreme Court has held that the presumption against the consumer to take effect, it must be proved that an artificial means or a means not authorised by the licensee had been used in committing the theft.

The appeals, before the Apex Court, were filed at the instance of the appellant-convict, against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which overturned the findings of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate in a case registered under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held, “What is obvious from the above is that for the presumption against the consumer to take effect, it must be proved that an artificial means or a means not authorised by the licensee had been used in committing the theft. In other words, the presumption is not of automatic application, and instead,something is required to be established for it to apply. In the instant case, therefore, it must be established by the MSEB that an artificial means had been employed.”

AOR Rajeev Singh represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Ajit Bhasme represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant-convict was a Director of M/s. Rushi Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. responsible for conducting the business of the Company. The power supply to the Company was provided by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The officials of the MSEB, in March 1993, noticed a mismatch between the units supplied to these factories visà-vis the readings taken from the meters at these factories. The alleged disparity was to the extent of 36.6 per cent. It was found in the investigation that the meter had been tampered with. According to the prosecution, the officials of the MSEB concluded that the workers of the Company had been using additional wires, interfering with the meter supply and thereby causing a slowdown in the running of the meter.

On a subsequent reading of the meter, the disparity was found to be around 10 per cent, and the approximate quantification of the alleged theft of electricity was to the tune of Rs 30 lakh. The Executive Engineer, MSEB, lodged a First Information Report. The Trial Court held that the charges under Sections 39 and 44 of the Act could not be established. The High Court sentenced the appellant-convict to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs 2 lakh. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that, as per Section 39, any person who dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy commits theft of energy. The second part of the Section provides that if it is proved that any artificial means or the means that have not been authorised by the licensee, are used in such theft of energy till the contrary is proved, it shall be assumed and presumed that such theft has been committed by the consumer.

On a perusal of the testimonies put forward by the prosecution, the Bench noted that none of them had deposed with complete confidence about the alleged theft of electricity and the use of artificial means therein, by the appellant convict. Most of the testimonies were based on estimation, presumption, approximation or possibilities, and the same could not be deemed to be sufficient for the purposes of proving the above. “As a necessary follow-up of the inability of the prosecution to prove the use of artificial means, the presumption against the consumer, that is, the appellantconvict, is not set in motion”, it added.

The Bench also found the charge under section 44 to be resting on shaky grounds. Nothing was brought on record to show that the meter had been injured or tampered with. None of the investigators from the MSEB carried out a practical exercise of checking the holes and the wires, and the possibility of it being actually used for theft, as was alleged to have taken place. “None of the witnesses or any other third person saw the accused, or, for that matter, any other person connected to the Company, openly tampering with the box. There was no categorical statement whatsoever that at the time of installation or any time prior to the inspection of the meter box by officials of the MSEB, there were no holes in the box. In other words, there are too many open possibilities for criminal liability to be affixed to any person. In our considered view, therefore, Section 44 of the Act also has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt”, it mentioned.

Thus, noting that neither Section 39 nor Section 44 could be established against the appellant-convict, the Bench allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellant of the charges.

Cause Title: Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1206)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Rajeev Singh

Respondent: Senior Advocate Ajit Bhasme, Advocate Shrirang B. Varma, AOR Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocates Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Parth Sarathi, Parshant Sharma, Rohan K Santoshi, Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Soumya Gulati, Mridul Vashsiht, AOR Sanjay Kumar Visen

Click here to read/download Judgment