1 ACQA No. 1051 of 2024 2026:CGHC:5204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1051 of 2024 Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division (Distribution) H.S. Shukla (Operation And Maintenance) Division Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Compay Ltd. Champa, District - Champa Chhattisgarh Appellant(s) Versus Pooran Lal Kashyap S/o Late Sitaram Aged About 36 Years R/o Bagdabripara - Mahant, P.S. Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board 30.01.2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant–Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment of acquittal RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.02.02 10:27:44 +0530 2 ACQA No. 1051 of 2024 dated 21.11.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act)/Judicial Magistrate First Class, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent/accused is a resident of Village Bagadbari Para–Mahant, Police Outpost Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, where an electricity meter bearing Service Connection No. 1002382196 was installed at his residential premises. On 10.11.2015, a vigilance inspection was conducted by K.K. Gupta, Junior Engineer (PW-1) along with departmental staff including Rajkumar Patel, Assistant Lineman (PW-3). Upon reaching the premises of the respondent, the inspection team constituted the inspection squad and prepared the inspection memo. It is alleged that during inspection, the respondent was found present at the spot and was informed about the inspection of the electricity connection. On inspection of the premises, it was found that the electricity meter had been bypassed prior to the meter and electricity was being illegally drawn for running electrical appliances such as bulbs, television, fans, cooler and CFL bulbs, amounting to approximately 1550 watts of load. In relation to the alleged theft of electricity, the inspection officer prepared panchnama, site inspection report, site map, and seizure memo, and allegedly seized about two meters of wire used for bypassing the meter. Thereafter, the Assistant Engineer H.S. Shukla (PW-2) prepared the assessment sheet and issued a provisional assessment order determining a provisional 3 ACQA No. 1051 of 2024 penalty amounting to ₹50,702/-. Subsequently, H.S. Shukla (PW-2), in his capacity as a Nodal Officer duly authorised by the electricity distribution company, filed a written complaint before the competent Court under Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, leading to registration of the criminal case against the respondent. 3. After completion of trial, the learned trial Court, by judgment dated 21.11.2016, acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 135(1- A) of the Electricity Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the appellant–electricity distribution company has preferred the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant–electricity distribution company submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error of law in acquitting the respondent despite sufficient oral and documentary evidence establishing the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is contended that in terms of Sections 135(2) and 135(3), the authorised officer is empowered to inspect and search the premises, and the presence of the occupant alone is required during such inspection. In the present case, the respondent himself was present and had signed the inspection and seizure documents (Exhibits P-3 to P-6), a material aspect overlooked by the trial Court. The finding regarding absence of independent witnesses is contrary to the statutory scheme, as Section 135 does not mandate their presence. It is further submitted that non-preparation of Form-3 does not vitiate the proceedings, as the 4 ACQA No. 1051 of 2024 inspection was conducted during daytime, and that Form-6 is required only upon objection to the provisional assessment under Form-5, which was never raised by the respondent. The finding regarding non-proof of ownership is perverse, as ownership or possession was never disputed by the respondent. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court has erroneously extended the benefit of doubt, particularly when the penalty bill raised pursuant to inspection was paid without protest, amounting to acceptance of liability. The appellant contends that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has erred in extending benefit of doubt to the respondent despite sufficient material establishing theft of electricity. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is based on a correct appreciation of evidence and strict compliance with the statutory safeguards under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Chhattisgarh Electricity Supply Code and Rules, 2006, and therefore calls for no interference. It is contended that the prosecution case suffers from fundamental procedural lapses, including non-compliance with mandatory requirements relating to inspection, seizure and assessment, absence of independent witnesses, failure to properly prove seizure of the alleged bypass wire, invalid service of the provisional assessment, and non-issuance of the final assessment order, which cumulatively render the prosecution version unreliable. Learned counsel submits that 5 ACQA No. 1051 of 2024 mere presence or signature of the accused on departmental documents does not dispense with compliance of mandatory provisions nor does it establish theft beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that the powers under Section 135 do not override the requirement of fair procedure, and any inspection conducted in violation of prescribed rules cannot form the basis of criminal conviction. The learned trial Court has rightly held that ownership, possession and conscious involvement of the accused were not proved through legally admissible evidence. It is submitted that the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible and well- reasoned view, and in an appeal against acquittal, interference is impermissible unless the findings are perverse or wholly unreasonable, which is not the case herein. Learned counsel lastly submits that payment of the assessed amount, even if assumed, cannot be treated as admission of guilt in a criminal prosecution, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and has carefully perused the impugned judgment of acquittal along with the entire evidence available on record. 7. The prosecution case rests entirely on the inspection dated 10.11.2015 allegedly conducted at the residential premises of the respondent, wherein theft of electricity by bypassing the meter was claimed. The inspection, seizure, preparation of documents, assessment of provisional penalty, and filing of complaint were all undertaken by officials of the electricity distribution company. 6 ACQA No. 1051 of 2024 8. The evidence adduced comprises oral testimony of departmental witnesses, namely the Junior Engineer (PW-1), Assistant Engineer (PW- 2), and Assistant Lineman (PW-3), along with documentary exhibits P-1 to P-9. Admittedly, no independent witness from the locality was associated at any stage of inspection, seizure, or preparation of documents. 9. The trial Court has minutely examined whether the mandatory safeguards prescribed under the Electricity Act, 2003, the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rules, 2006, and the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with. It emerges from the record that the inspection was conducted in a domestic premises, yet Form-3, mandatorily required under Rule 5 when inspection, search, and seizure are undertaken, was not prepared. No prior written reasons for inspection were recorded, nor was the accused formally informed in the prescribed manner. Further, there is no evidence that the inspecting officer offered his personal search before entering the premises. 10. Although a panchnama (Ex. P-3) was prepared, the same bears signatures only of departmental officials and the accused, without signatures of any independent or respectable inhabitants of the locality, as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules, 2006 read with Section 100(4) CrPC. The seizure of alleged bypass wire is also vitiated, as the seized article was neither sealed at the spot nor produced before the Court, and no description regarding its thickness, colour, or measurement was recorded. 7 ACQA No. 1051 of 2024 11. The service of provisional assessment order (Form-5) is also found doubtful, as it was not served upon the accused but upon a third person whose identity, relationship, or authority was never established. No final assessment order under Form-6 was passed, despite statutory requirement under Section 126 and Rule 7, thereby rendering the assessment proceedings incomplete. 12. Further, though the electricity bill allegedly standing in the name of the accused was relied upon, the same was neither duly seized nor proved in accordance with law. Ownership or exclusive possession of the premises was also not established through any independent or documentary evidence. Significantly, no FIR or report within 24 hours, as contemplated under Section 135, was lodged, and no explanation for such omission has been offered. Thus, the entire prosecution case suffers from serious procedural lapses going to the root of the matter. 13. Upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. The prosecution case hinges upon the inspection allegedly conducted on 10.11.2015 at the residential premises of the respondent for theft of electricity by bypassing the meter. However, the material on record unmistakably reflects that the inspection, search, seizure, and consequential proceedings were not carried out in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rules, 2006, and the safeguards envisaged under the Code of Criminal 8 ACQA No. 1051 of 2024 Procedure. The non-preparation of Form-3, absence of recorded reasons for inspection, failure to offer personal search prior to entry, and non- association of independent witnesses at the time of search and seizure, despite availability, vitiate the credibility of the inspection process. Further, the alleged seized bypass wire was neither properly described nor sealed at the spot, nor produced before the Court, thereby breaking the evidentiary chain and creating serious doubt about the alleged seizure. 14. Additionally, the provisional assessment order under Form-5 was not proved to have been validly served upon the respondent, having been allegedly delivered to an unidentified third person without any proof of authority or relationship. The mandatory final assessment order under Form-6 was never issued, rendering the assessment proceedings incomplete and contrary to law. The prosecution also failed to establish ownership or exclusive possession of the premises by the respondent through cogent and reliable evidence. The entire prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of departmental officials, who are admittedly interested witnesses, and their evidence, in the absence of strict compliance with statutory safeguards, does not inspire confidence to sustain a conviction. In criminal jurisprudence, particularly in cases of theft of electricity, adherence to procedural requirements is not a mere formality but a condition precedent for fastening criminal liability. 15. The learned trial Court has meticulously examined each of these lapses and has extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent on sound legal 9 ACQA No. 1051 of 2024 principles. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible and reasonable view based on the evidence on record, and no perversity, illegality, or misappreciation of evidence has been demonstrated warranting interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal. 16. It is well settled that when two views are possible, the appellate Court should not substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. Accordingly, the prosecution having failed to prove the charge under Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, affirming the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri