The Patna High Court has quashed an FIR alleging electricity theft, holding that non-payment of electricity dues by itself does not establish dishonest consumption punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Justice Jitendra Kumar passed the judgment on June 22, 2026, in a criminal writ petition concerning an electricity connection in Nawada. The Court found that the material on record did not support the claim that the petitioner’s connection had actually been disconnected or that the meter had been tampered with.
Background of the Case
According to the FIR, the petitioner had outstanding electricity dues of Rs. 5,39,126. The electricity department alleged that his domestic connection had been disconnected on January 4, 2021, but that he was later found consuming electricity during a raid on April 19, 2022.
The department claimed that the meter reading had increased from 59,425 KWh at the time of the alleged disconnection to 71,412 KWh on the date of the raid. It also alleged a loss of Rs. 1,96,811 due to unauthorized consumption.
The petitioner disputed the alleged disconnection and pointed out that the inspection record did not mention meter tampering. He submitted that the meter was running normally and said he was willing to pay the outstanding electricity charges.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the distinction between Section 126 and Section 135 of the Electricity Act. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, which explained that Section 126 primarily concerns assessment for unauthorized use, while Section 135 deals with theft involving dishonest intention.
The bench observed that “dishonesty is a state of mind” that must be established for punishment under Section 135. It noted that unauthorized use under Section 126 can exist even without such intention.
Applying this distinction, the Court found that neither the FIR nor the inspection notes mentioned meter tampering, cutting of the connection, or sealing of the meter. Instead, the meter was found running and its reading had increased normally.
Decision
The Court held that the material did not establish dishonest consumption. It observed that while there could be a civil liability concerning unpaid electricity charges, the alleged facts did not disclose criminal liability under Section 135.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR. The Court clarified that the electricity distribution company remained free to recover the outstanding charges according to law and could also invoke Section 126 if its legal conditions were satisfied.
Case Details
Case Title: Md. Shahid Imam v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 645 of 2022
Judge: Justice Jitendra Kumar
Decision Date: June 22, 2026
-300x169.webp)
