The Supreme Court has held that even after one is acquitted by Court for theft of electricity, power authorities can conduct an assessment of charges payable for unauthorised use of electricity.

The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition against a Jharkhand High Court Judgment directing power authorities to conduct proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, under which if an inspection reveals unauthorised use of electricity, the assessing officer can make a provisional assessment for charges payable. This direction was issued after the Petitioner was acquitted of charges under Section 135 of the Act, which relates to theft of electricity.

A two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held, "Even if theft of electricity is not established in prosecution, there is always a power vesting in Section 126 of the 2003 Act to issue a demand for unauthorised user of energy. Therefore, acquittal of the appellant will not prevent the respondent from initiating proceedings under Section 126 of the 2003 Act."

Senior Advocate Navaniti Prasad Singh appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Madhumita Bhattacharjee appeared for the Respondents.

It was contended by the Petitioner that the prosecution had failed to to prove the charge of theft of electricity against them and, therefore, argued that after the were acquitted, there cannot be any adjudication for unauthorised use of electricity.

The Petitioner also submitted that the Special Court that tried the offence had not made any determination of civil liability under Section 154(5) and hence, the power authorities cannot were not empowered to exercise the powers of assessment for unauthorised use under Section 126.

As per Section 126, 'unauthorised use of electricity' means usage of electricity in any of the following ways: By any artificial means, by a means not authorised by the concerned person, authority or licensee, through a tampered meter, for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised, or for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised.

The Supreme Court, rejecting the above argument, held that the Special Court gets jurisdiction to determine civil liability if it is found that a consumer has committed theft of electricity. In this case, the Court said, the finding of the Special Court was that the charge of theft has not been established and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Special Court to determine liability under Section 154(5) of the Act.

While dismissing the SLP, the Court clarified, "We also make it clear that the issue whether there is any unauthorised user of energy by the appellant is expressly kept open and the appellant can raise all contentions in that behalf while raising objections in accordance with Section 126(3) of the 2003 Act. All contentions on that aspect are left open."

Cause Title: Castron Technologies Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation [SLP(C) 6114 of 2023]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Navaniti Prasad Singh and Advocates Dhananjay Pathak, Vaibhav Niti, Vijayraj Singh Chouhan and Madhavi Agrawal

Respondents: Advocates Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Srija Choudhury, Debarati Sadhu and Anant

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Abhay S. OkaJustice Augustine George Masih

Tushar Kohli