Mere Non-Payment Of Electricity Dues Not 'Electricity Theft' Without Proof Of Meter Tampering: Patna High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
8 Aug 2026 4:05 PM IST
The Patna High Court has held that mere non-payment of electricity dues does not amount to electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, where there is no material to show that the connection had actually been disconnected or that the consumer had tampered with the meter.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar observed that while the consumer could be liable to pay the outstanding electricity charges, criminal prosecution could not be sustained in the absence of evidence of dishonest consumption.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. According to the Electricity Department, officials conducted a raid and found that the petitioner was consuming electricity despite his domestic connection having allegedly been disconnected in January 2021 due to outstanding dues of over ₹5.39 lakh. The FIR alleged that the petitioner had continued using electricity without clearing the dues or obtaining reconnection, causing a loss of ₹1.96 lakh to the South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited (SBPDCL).
Before the Court, the petitioner admitted that electricity dues were pending but denied that his connection had ever been disconnected. He pointed out that the inspection report itself did not record any meter tampering or unauthorized bypass, and submitted that he had continued using electricity through the existing meter and was willing to pay the outstanding charges.
The distribution company, on the other hand, argued that the connection had been disconnected in January 2021 and relied on the inspection report to contend that the petitioner had dishonestly consumed electricity thereafter.
After examining the record, the Court found that the allegation of disconnection was unsupported by the material relied upon by the authorities. The Bench noted that neither the FIR nor the inspection report recorded that the meter had been tampered with, that the supply had been physically disconnected, or that the meter had been sealed. Instead, the inspection showed that the meter remained functional and its reading had naturally increased over time.
The Court observed that the running meter itself contradicted the allegation that electricity had been illegally restored after disconnection. It held:
“It clearly shows that the Petitioner was not consuming electricity with dishonest intention, in fact, he was using it bonafidely. The only thing against the Petitioner is that he had not paid the electricity charge due against him to the SBPDCL”
Holding that the dispute essentially related to recovery of unpaid electricity charges, the Court said the facts disclosed, at best, a civil liability and not a criminal offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR.
Case Title: Md. Shahid Imam v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 645 of 2022
Appearance: Mr. Arun Kumar for the Petitioner; Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad for the State; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri and Mr. Mritunjay Harsh for the Respondents.
