Bombay HC: Special court or civil court has no power to order restoration of electric supply at interim stage if prosecution is initiated under S 135 of Electricity Act

It is thus clear that this section nowhere provides a power in the Court to grant any interim relief. Only option for a person under Section 135 of the said Act to deposit the entire amount. If the entire amount is deposited, it is only then that the connection can be restored, and it is only thereafter the provisions of Section 154(5) can be invoked.{Para 8}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

914 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 814 OF 2025

The Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Com. Ltd. Ahmednagar And Others Vs Rajendra Tukaram Avhad

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.

DATE : 14th AUGUST 2025.

Print Page

Illegal Arrest and Violation of Personal Liberty: Bombay High Court Orders Compensation and Inquiry, Upholding Individual Rights Against Arbitrary Police Actions"

 Thus, it is clearly evident that the police failed to comply with the provisions of the Cr. PC as well as the directions of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (Supra), rendering the petitioner's arrest illegal. We find in the peculiar facts, that not only the police but even the learned Magistrate before whom the matter appeared had without any application of mind granted one day's police custody of the petitioner. It is the duty of every Magistrate, when an accused is produced before him/her, to ensure that the provisions of law have been duly complied with and whether police custody in those given facts, is warranted. We are afraid, that even the learned Magistrate failed in his duty to consider whether the arrest of the petitioner was justified having regard to the nature of allegations and Sections with which the petitioner was charged. The Magistrate failed to comply with the directions issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (Supra). As per the direction, even the Magistrate concerned, shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court, for authorising detention without recording reasons. All that the Magistrate in his order dated 29th January 2020 granting one day's Police Custody Remand has observed, 'Perused remand application, FIR and case diary. The names of accused are reflected in FIR. The investigation is in progress. I am satisfied for the reasons mentioned in remand appln that presence of accused are required for further progress in investigation. Hence, all the accused are remanded to police custody till 30.01.2020.' Magistrates are not mute spectators, but are Courts of first instance, before whom the accused are produced. It is there bounden duty to uphold the law and protect the liberty of an individual from arbitrary arrest. In the present case, the petitioner had paid all his dues including the compounding charges and as such the petitioner's arrest was unwarranted and as such arbitrary. The aforesaid action of the police, resulted in mental agony to the petitioner since he was required to stay in police custody for one day despite having paid all dues of Adani Electricity including compounding charges. {Para 21}

22. In view of the aforesaid, we pass the following order:-

ORDER

(i) We direct the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand) to the petitioner, within 6 weeks from today;

(ii) We direct the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, to appoint an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, to conduct a departmental inquiry with respect to the arrest of the petitioner by the police officers of the R.C.F. Police Station, Chembur, Mumbai. The petitioner to be heard in the inquiry so conducted. The inquiry to be completed within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order;

(iii) The compensation so paid, to be recovered, after a full- fledged inquiry, from the salary of the person/persons found responsible for the illegal detention of the petitioner;

(iv) A copy of this order be sent to the learned Magistrate who granted police custody of the petitioner.

23. The Petition is allowed and is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

24. Petition to be listed on 19th December 2024, for recording compliance of clauses (i) to (iii) of para 22 of the aforesaid Judgment and Order.

25. A copy of this Judgment and Order be placed before the Administrative Committee of this Court headed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for taking appropriate steps against the Magistrate, having regard to para 11.8. of the judgment of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (Supra).

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition No. 3898 of 2023

Decided On: 01.10.2024

Alex Vs. The State of Maharashtra's and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

Author: Revati Mohite Dere, J.

Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:39450-DB,MANU/MH/6240/2024.

Print Page

Madhya Pradesh HC: Electricity Department cannot recover the dues assessed in the name of electricity theft until adjudicated by the Special Court

After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and going through the provisions of Sections 135 and 154 of the Act, 2003, this Court finds that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act, 2003 shall be triable by the Special Court. As per Sub Section 5 of Section 154 of the Act, the Special Court is even empowered to determine the civil liability against the consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy. Thus, when the

Special Court is very well empowered to determine the civil liability apart from taking any penal action against the person who has committed theft of energy, the authorities could not have usurped such powers and could not had determined the liability and could not have raised a demand of Rs.1,93,561/- vide Annexure P/1 dated 23.07.2022.The aforesaid analogy finds support from the matter of Sangita wd/o Suresh Chandra Gupta and Another Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2009(1) MPLJ 366.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

WRIT PETITION No. 11729 of 2023

NAVEEN KUMAR JAIN Vs  MADHYA PRADESH.

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

Dated: 24 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025.

Citation: 2025:MPHC-GWL:3898.

Print Page

Whether accused can be prosecuted for theft of electricity U/S 379 IPC?

 When there is a specific/special law covering the question of theft of electricity i.e. Section 135 of the Act, the general law contained in Section 379, IPC will not be applicable. Any attempt by the notice to add offence under Section 379 IPC will be a crude devise by the prosecution to overcome the likely objection from the accused about the filing of the complaint instead of registration of FIR. Law is well-settled that special law will prevail over the general law. Once there is a specific provision is the Act in respect of providing of punishment for theft of electricity, no offence under Section 379, IPC could be alleged by the prosecution or later on added during the investigation so as to preempt the taking of plea by the accused that no prosecution for the offence under Section 135 of the Act could be launched except upon a complaint by the authorized officer.

7. That apart, the Electricity Act, 2003, which is a special statute, is a latter piece of legislation, than the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and therefore, it can be safely assumed that the legislature in its wisdom, after considering the general provision of offence of theft under the Indian Penal Code, decided to bring in the specific provision for offence of theft of electricity under the provision of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, once a person is said to have committed an alleged offence of theft of electricity, no case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would lie in view of the specific provision of law contained in the Electricity Act, 2003 in this regard.

Calcutta High Court

Biswanath Patra vs Divisional Engineer (E) S And Lp ... on 4 May, 2007

Equivalent citations: AIR 2007 Cal 189, 2007 (2) CHN 657

Bench: B Somadder

Print Page

Whether court must direct payment of court fees in proceeding U/S 154 of Electricity Act before the special court for fixing of civil liability?

 Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Court Fee Act provides for payment of ad valorem court fee on plaint, written statement pleading a set off or counter claim or memorandum of appeal or cross-objections presented to civil or revenue courts except those mentioned in Section 3. Unless the respondent can bring its case within the parameters of Article 1 of Schedule 1, ad valorem court fee would not be payable in respect of the amount claimed by the petitioner as civil liability of the respondents. Therefore, the question which arises is whether the complaint filed by the petitioner can be deemed to be a „plaint‟ within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Court Fee Act and whether the special court can be said to be a civil court for the purpose of this article. Taking into consideration the proposition of law enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjeet Singh Patheja (Supra), special courts cannot be deemed to be civil court, the same having been specially set up u/s 153 of the Special Courts Act primarily for the purpose of trial of offence punishable U/ss 135 to 140 and Section 150 of Electricity Act. These special courts are not regular courts envisaged under Article 136 of the Constitution irrespective of the fact that the person who can be appointed as a Judge of a Special Court needs to be an Additional District & Sessions Judge immediately before his appointment as a Judge of a Special Court. In any case, in the absence of any specific statutory provision to this effect, a court set up primarily for the purpose of trial of the criminal offences cannot be considered to be a civil court within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Court Fee Act.

24. In any case, the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Special Court cannot be construed as a „plaint‟ by any logical construction of the document. A bare perusal of this document, styled as a complaint u/s 135 r/w Section 151 of Electricity Act would show that the main prayer made by the complainant/petitioner was to summon, try and punish the respondents/accused persons on the ground that they had committed theft of electricity and had thereby committed offences punishable u/s 135(1) of Electricity Act, 2003. The complaint also contains an additional prayer to the court to determine the civil liability as provided in Section 154(5) of the Act. In my view, merely because this complaint also contains a prayer for determination of civil liability that by itself does not convert it into a „plaint‟. A document cannot be said to be a criminal complaint as well as a plaint at the same time. A criminal plaint lies before a criminal court whereas the plaint lies before a civil court. The procedure prescribed in Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of a case instituted on a complaint is altogether different from the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, for trial of a suit instituted by filing a plaint. Therefore, this document cannot be termed as a plaint within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Court Fee Act.

25. Section 26(2) of Code of Civil Procedure provides that in every plaint, facts shall be proved by affidavit. On the other hand, Section 154 of Electricity Act, 2003 provides that the special court may try the offences referred to in Section 135 to 140 and Section 150 in a summary way in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Section 263 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall, so far as may be, apply to such trial. It does not prescribe any separate procedure for determination of civil liability. The Electricity Act does not envisage application of two procedures, by special court, one for the purpose of trial of offences referred to in Section 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Act and the other for determination of civil liability u/s 154(5) of the Act. Had the legislative intent been that for the purpose of determination of civil liability, the special court would adopt the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure for trial of a suit, it would have expressly stated so in the Act. In any case this is not the case of the respondents that the Special Courts, are conducting two independent proceedings, one in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Cr.P.C. for trial of the offences of which the complaint has primarily been filed and the other in accordance with the procedure prescribed in CPC for trial of civil suits, for determining civil liability u/s 154(5) of Electricity Act.

29. The entire procedure for trial of a civil suit instituted by presentation of a plaint as prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure is altogether different from the procedure prescribed for dealing with the complaints in respect of the offences referred to in Section 135 to 140 and Section 150 of Electricity Act. Neither adoption of such a procedure has been prescribed by Section 154 of Electricity Act nor is such a procedure otherwise implicit in that Act.

30. The interpretation given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Industrial Finance Corpn. (Supra), followed by this court in Prakash Playing Cards Manufacturing Co. (Supra) equally applies to Section 154 (5) of Electricity Act, 2003. The view being taken by me also finds full support from the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in, Paramjit Singh Patheja (Supra), interpreting Section 15 of Arbitration Act of 1899 and Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

31. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered view that ad valorem court fee is not payable on the complaints filed by the petitioner before the Special Courts. The view taken by the learned Judge of the Special Court is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 

 Delhi High Court

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs State N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anr. on 25 November, 2008

Author: V. K. Jain

Crl.M.C.3284/2008

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence in case of theft of electricity?

 From the aforesaid facts, it can be noticed that theft of electricity has been presumed solely on the basis of availability of cut in the incoming PVC of the house of the neighbour. The incoming PVC of the house of the neighbour happens to pass near to the Chhajja of the house of the plaintiff. No pilferage of the electricity was found at the spot either on 04.06.2017 or on 05.06.2017. In the LLI report dated 04.06.2017, blinking of the meter was found to be stopped, but in LLI report dated 05.06.2017, no such feature was noticed by the inspecting team. The blinking and non-blinking of the meter was directly proportional to the stoppage of supply by the consumer herself in her house. The said event can happen in case of no supply from the department and the supply is being generated through the mechanism of genset. In such eventuality, blinking of the meter would stop. This fact has been admitted by DW 1 Mandeep Sidhu, SDO Vigilance when he was cross-examined on 16.03.2018.

10. From the testimonies of DW 1 and DW 2, positive fact has come to fore that the witnesses have not verified that the running of electricity in the house of the plaintiff was only on account of electricity supply of department and not on account of operation of genset and inverter in the house of the plaintiff. Non-blinking of the meter cannot be attributed to commission of theft alone, rather the same can happen during the course of supply through genset/inverter when electricity supply is off.

11. Admittedly, the raiding team has not removed the meter for any lab checking. The checking report in the context of instruction No. 9 issued by the department cannot be held to be legal inasmuch as that defendant was legally required to make video-graphy of the events dated 04.06.2007 and 05.06.2017. As per instruction No. 9, pertaining to procedure for inspection of premises, detection of theft of electricity and framing a case for theft of electricity, video-graphy/recording of all the events in a digital camera is required as an essential feature for ready reference of such event. The aforesaid instruction No. 9 has been issued by the department for dealing with the cases of theft of electricity and the instruction prescribes that the investigating officer/officials shall take along with them the digital camera/video or any other recording devise preferably having the facility of date and time stamp for recording the complete events during the course of checking of the premises. While inspecting and checking the premises, the raiding party should record whole event after reaching the premises upto leaving the premises through video-graphy in the camera/digital camera. The authorized inspecting officer shall keep one CD with him and hand over one CD to assessing officer.

12. Admittedly, the aforesaid exercise has not been done. In a case of similar violation, the High Court in CWP No. 9582 of 2013 titled D.H.B.V.N.L. v. Permanent Lok Adalat and another decided on 01.04.2014 has observed that noncompliance of aforesaid instruction(s) would entail in disbelieving the stand of the department.

13. In view of admitted facts on record, it is found that the defendant has drawn conjecture against the plaintiff solely on the ground of availability of cut tapped with cello tape in the incoming PVC of the house of the neighbour that happens to pass near to the chhajja of the house of the plaintiff. No other evidence has been collected to show any pilferage at the instance of the plaintiff through the cut in the incoming PVC of the house of the neighbour. No complaint was ever made by the neighbour. No action has been taken against the consumer of incoming PVC where the cut was detected by the investigating team. The case of theft has to be decided on the basis of proving guilt of the accused/consumer to the hilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

CR No. 3390 of 2018 (O&M)

Decided On: 17.10.2019

Santosh  Vs.  SDO City Sub Division, Ubhvnl

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

Citation: AIR 2020(NOC) 139 P&H

Print Page

Whether person committing theft of electricity can be prosecuted under provisions of IPC?

 Sections 378 and 379 IPC deal with the theft of movable property. Electricity is energy and not property. There is no provision in the IPC to prosecute any person for committing theft of electricity. Therefore the provisions of Electricity Act are enacted to take various offences relating to electricity.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 4415 of 2017

Decided On: 09.02.2018

 Syed Yaqoob Syed Masood Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S. Shinde and A.M. Dhavale, JJ.

Print Page

Whether cognizance of offence under Electricity Act by Magistrate is legal?

As per the provisions of Section 153 of Electricity Act, the
Additional District and Sessions Judge shall be competent to be
appointed as a Judge of Special court and if no special court has
been constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 153, then in view of
State Amendment (Maharashtra) of sub-section (5) of Section 153,
the High Court may designate one or more Additional District and
Sessions Judges to exercise the powers of Special court under the
Act and any Judge, so designated, shall be deemed to be special
court for the purpose of the Act of 2003. Further, in view of the
provisions of Section 151, more specifically proviso 2, the special
court, as constituted under the provisions of Section 153, shall be
competent to take cognizance of offence without accused being
committed to it for trial. In ordinary course, the special court, being
the court of Sessions, would not take cognizance of the offence
without accused being committed it for trial. The same would be
defeating the object of speedy enquiry or trial of offence explicit
under the provisions of Section 153 of the Electricity Act. Thus, there
is enabling provision under Section 151 proviso as above,
empowering that the special court to take cognizance of offence
without the accused being committed to it for trial. It is also
necessary to note that the power of the Magistrate to take
cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. is not excluded. The same
is also evident from the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 154

of the Act 2003 that in the course of any enquiry or trial, if it appears
to any Court that an offence punishable under Sections 135 to 140
and Section 150 of the Act 2003 in respect of any offence that the
case is one which is triable by the special court constituted under the
Act of 2003 for the area in which such case has arisen, it shall
transfer such case to such special court, and thereupon such case
shall be tried and disposed of by such Special Court in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2568 OF 2005
Zuber Baig s/o Kalim Baig,

 v
 The State of Maharashtra

 CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
Dated : 15.09.2016
Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI)1005

Print Page

Whether proceeding will be vitiated if Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Electricity Act?

It is also
necessary to note that the power of the Magistrate to take
cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. is not excluded. The same
is also evident from the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 154
of the Act 2003 that in the course of any enquiry or trial, if it appears
to any Court that an offence punishable under Sections 135 to 140
and Section 150 of the Act 2003 in respect of any offence that the
case is one which is triable by the special court constituted under the
Act of 2003 for the area in which such case has arisen, it shall
transfer such case to such special court, and thereupon such case
shall be tried and disposed of by such Special Court in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.
As per the provisions of Section 460 of Cr.P.C. particularly
clause (e), if any Magistrate is not empowered by law to take
cognizance of offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section
(1) of Section 190 of Cr.P.C. such irregularity do not vitiate the
proceedings.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 227 OF 2005
Tukaram S/o Pandurang Lalpotu,

 v
 The State of Maharashtra

 CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.


 Dated : 15.09.2016
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)4624

Print Page

Whether Magistrate can grant bail under Electricity Act 2003?

 The contention of the petitioner that such offences would have to be tried by the Sessions Court is consequent upon section 153(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which requires the Judge who has been only an Additional District and Session Judge to be appointed as the Judge of the Special Court and under section 155 of the Electricity Act, 2003, under which the Special Court would have the power of the Court of Session.

8. This would be only after the Special Courts are constituted and not before. Hence, when the State Government has not constituted the Special Courts, since the power and the duty of the State Government is not mandatory as denoted by expression 'may', under Rule 11 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, the jurisdiction of the general courts would not stand barred.

9. The learned Sessions Judge, in the impugned order, has considered this legal position clearly and succinctly. He has, therefore, correctly held that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate was not barred and hence the order of bail passed by the Magistrate was not illegal.

10. In fact, in the complaint filed by the brother of the petitioner in the Magistrate's Court, the trial has already proceeded. The application for cancellation of bail is, therefore, correctly considered and rejected. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (PANAJI BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 64 of 2012

Decided On: 07.01.2014

Appellants: Kashinath Shetye
Vs.
Respondent: State, through its Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:R.S. Dalvi and F.M. Reis, JJ.

 Citation: 2014(2)BomCR(Cri)68,2014 ALLMR(cri) 2344

Print Page