The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a panchnama and inspection report prepared by officials of the Electricity Distribution Company in discharge of their official duties cannot be discarded merely because no independent witness was examined. The Court further held that proceedings for assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and prosecution for theft of electricity under Section 135 operate in different fields, and non-compliance with provisions relating to assessment does not vitiate a criminal prosecution for theft of electricity.

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas was hearing an acquittal appeal filed by the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited challenging the judgment of the Special Judge acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 1ac35 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The prosecution alleged that the respondent was illegally drawing electricity by directly hooking a wire to the low-tension line.

The trial court acquitted the respondent, holding that no independent witness had been examined and the mandatory provisions of the Electricity Act and the Chhattisgarh Electricity Rules, 2006 had not been complied with.

The Court noted that the member of the inspection team supported the case of prosecution, and nothing was brought on record to rebut the same. The Court observed that the panchnama and inspection report had been prepared by public officials while discharging their statutory duties and, in the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating that the documents were false or fabricated, they could not be rejected solely because no independent witness had been examined.

“… learned trial Court should have drawn the presumption of correctness of the panchnama in absence of producing the cogent evidence or rebuttal by the accused to disprove the genuineness and correctness of the panchnama,” the Court observed.

The Court further held that the trial court had erred in treating the alleged non-compliance with the assessment procedure under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Rules, 2006 as fatal to the prosecution. It observed that Section 126 deals with assessment for unauthorised use of electricity, whereas Section 135 creates the distinct criminal offence of theft of electricity.

The Court held that even assuming there was non-compliance with the procedure governing assessment, such irregularity would not invalidate criminal proceedings under Section 135. It also rejected the trial court's finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the respondent's ownership of the premises.

Holding that the trial court had ignored material evidence, misapplied the provisions of the Electricity Act, and recorded findings suffering from patent perversity, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal.

Case Title: Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Dinesh Chandra [ACQA No. 714 of 2019].

Click Here To Read/Download Order