In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India on October 8, 2025, set aside the conviction of industrialist Mahaveer Agrawal, accused of tampering with an electricity meter to allegedly steal power worth ₹30 lakh. The Court found the prosecution’s case resting on “presumptions, approximations, and possibilities” rather than concrete proof, ultimately restoring his 1997 acquittal.
Background
Mahaveer, a director of M/s Rushi Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Jalna, was accused of power theft by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) after officials detected a 36.6% discrepancy between supplied and recorded energy consumption in 1993.
An inspection revealed three holes in the company’s meter box, which investigators claimed allowed interference with the reading mechanism. Based on these findings, MSEB lodged an FIR, and the case proceeded under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910-both dealing with theft and interference with meters.
The trial court in 1997 acquitted Mahaveer, observing that the prosecution failed to prove dishonest abstraction of electricity. However, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) reversed this decision in 2010, convicting him and sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a ₹2 lakh fine.
Court’s Observations
Hearing Mahaveer’s appeal, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra closely examined the testimonies of five prosecution witnesses. The bench noted inconsistencies, vague statements, and lack of technical verification.
“The witnesses spoke in terms of possibilities and guesswork, not certainty,” Justice Karol observed. One official even admitted during cross-examination that his findings were “based on guesswork and nothing specific.”
Another key witness conceded that the team’s conclusion was “entirely based upon inference only,” without any test to verify if the holes actually enabled electricity theft. The Court found it troubling that no officer had confirmed whether the holes were pre-existing or newly drilled.
“The presumption of guilt under the Act does not arise automatically,” the bench said, emphasizing that it applies only when artificial means for theft are conclusively established. The prosecution, the Court held, failed to meet that threshold.
In a pointed remark, the Court said, “Most testimonies are based on estimation, presumption, approximation or possibilities - needless to state, the same cannot be deemed sufficient.”
Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s 2010 order, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s acquittal. It ruled that Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that no direct or circumstantial evidence established Mahaveer’s involvement.
The bench concluded:
“There are too many open possibilities for criminal liability to be affixed to any person. As such, the appeals are allowed.”
With this, Mahaveer’s bail bonds were discharged, and all pending applications stood disposed of.
The verdict underscores the Court’s consistent reminder that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof-a principle that continues to anchor Indian criminal jurisprudence.
Case: Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1206
Case Type: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2154–2155 of 2011
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2025