The Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned the acquittal of a consumer accused of illegally drawing electricity after his power connection had been disconnected for non-payment of dues. Holding that the trial court ignored crucial evidence and misapplied the law, the High Court convicted the respondent under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and later directed him to pay the assessed electricity charges along with a monetary fine.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. (CSPDCL) against the judgment of the Special Judge (Electricity Act), Janjgir-Champa, dated November 3, 2016, which had acquitted Dinesh Chandra of charges relating to electricity theft.
According to the complaint, a vigilance team inspected the respondent's house on March 10, 2014. The officials found that although the electricity connection had already been disconnected due to unpaid bills, electricity was allegedly being drawn directly from the Low Tension (LT) line through an illegal hook connection. The inspection team recorded that several electrical appliances, including a fan, cooler, television, water pump and lights, were operating through the unauthorized connection. Based on the inspection, CSPDCL assessed a loss of ₹43,623 and initiated prosecution under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
Why the Trial Court Acquitted the Accused
The Special Court had acquitted the respondent primarily on three grounds. It held that no independent witness had been examined during the inspection, the prosecution had failed to establish ownership or possession of the premises, and certain procedural requirements under the Electricity Act and the Chhattisgarh Electricity Rules had not been complied with. On that basis, the trial court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
High Court's Observations
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas found serious flaws in the reasoning adopted by the trial court.
The Court observed that inspection reports and seizure documents prepared by electricity officials while performing official duties cannot be rejected merely because no independent witness was present during the inspection. The respondent had also not produced any evidence to challenge the authenticity of the inspection records or the panchnama.
"The panchnama and inspection report were prepared by officials in discharge of their official duties and could not be discarded in the absence of cogent evidence showing that they were false or fabricated,"
the Court observed.
The High Court further noted that the respondent's wife was present during the inspection and had signed the inspection documents. The respondent himself admitted during his examination that his wife was present at the time of inspection, strengthening the prosecution's case.
Rejecting the trial court's finding regarding ownership of the property, the Court held that the electricity connection stood in the respondent's name and the disconnection notice had also been issued to him. In such circumstances, production of revenue records to establish title was unnecessary because the dispute was not about ownership of the property but about unauthorized use of electricity.
The Court also clarified that proceedings for assessment of electricity dues under Section 126 and criminal prosecution for electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act operate in different fields. Therefore, even assuming there were procedural deficiencies relating to assessment, they would not invalidate the criminal proceedings for theft of electricity.
Acquittal Set Aside
After examining the evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established unauthorized use of electricity by direct hooking from the LT line. It held that the trial court had ignored material evidence and reached findings that were legally unsustainable.
"The findings of acquittal are perverse and contrary to law. No two reasonable views are possible from the evidence available on record,"
the Court said while allowing the appeal.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It thereafter listed the matter for hearing on the question of sentence.
Sentence and Final Decision
Following a separate hearing on sentence held on June 17, 2026, the High Court considered the respondent's plea for leniency, noting that it was his first offence and that imprisonment would adversely affect his family. At the same time, it acknowledged the electricity company's submission that illegal consumption of electricity causes financial loss to both the utility and the public.
Balancing these considerations, the Court directed the respondent to deposit ₹43,623 towards the electricity theft assessment along with a fine of ₹5,000 within two months. The assessed amount was directed to be paid to the electricity company as compensation. The Court further ordered that if the respondent failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, he would undergo three months' simple imprisonment, while remaining liable to pay both the assessment amount and the fine. The acquittal appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Dinesh Chandra
Case Number: ACQA No. 714 of 2019
Judge: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Decision Date: 15 June 2026 (Conviction Judgment); 17 June 2026 (Order on Sentence)
