JAGMODHAN MEHATABSING GUJARAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 332 · Decided: 02-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAGMODHAN MEHATABSING GUJARAL AND ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
NOVEMBER 2, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Indian Electricity Act 1910; 
C 
Sections 39 and 44-large scale theft of electricity-Held, on Facts, 
conviction not to be interfered, fine enhanced. 
Appellants are accused of committing large scale theft of electricity. 
A team of officials led by the then Dy. Executive Engineer and in-charge 
of flying squad of the State Electricity Board went to appellant's industrial 
D premises for the purpose of inspection and checking. Large scale 
tampering with the meters so that actual consumption could not be 
recorded, was detected. The daily consumption of power to be recorded 
by the consumer in prescribed G-7 form was found to have been written 
only once every month. Abnormal difference was found between the 
entries noted by the consumer in G-7 form and the reading recorded by 
E the officers of M.S.E.B. The appellants did not pay any amount more than 
the minimum charges to the Doard, whereas the actual consumption of 
the electricity was assessed by the complaints as an Expert in the field to 
be much higher. After proper investigation of the entire case, the charges 
agai11st the appellant were framed under Sections 39 and 44 of the 
F Electricity Act, 1910 to which the appellants pleaded no! guilty. The 
appellants were found guilty and convicted by the trial cou~t for offences 
under Sections 39 and 44 of the Act and were also directed to pay a fine. 
These appellants were directed to suffer three months rigorous 
imprisonment. Appellant number 1 and 3 were also directed to pay fine 
and appellant number 2 to pay a fine under Section 39 of the Act. The 
G lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. High 
Court too upheld the decision of the lower courts. 
H 
It was contended by the appellant that there w.as. no dishonest 
consumption or use ofelectric energy by them directly or by any artificial 
means or the means not authorizC'd by the licensee . It was also contended 
332 
JAGMODHAN MEHATABSING GUJARAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
333 
that the complainant was not authorized to file FIR. The other contention. A 
was that there is manifest error in the judgment of the Trial Court, which 
was affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court by which 
the appellants were convicted and sentenced to three months rigorous 
imprisonment on the ground that the theft of electricity to the extent of 
an amount different from what the Civil Court had come to the conclusion B 
and passed the decree in favour of the respondent Maharashtra State ' 
Electricity Board in a Civil Suit . The appellants had also alleged that 48 
hours notice was not given to them before conducting the raid. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD 1.1. After the amendment in the provisions of Section 50 of · C 
the Indian Electricity Act' 1910, the words 'Government or a State 
Electricity Board or an Electric Inspector or a person aggrieved by same' 
have been amended and the officers of the State Electricity Board or a 
person aggrieved by the theft are authorised by the notification to lodge 
a complaint. (338-FJ 
D 
1.2. The judgment of the trial Court, affirmed by the first appellate 
court and the High Court, convicting and sentencing the appellants to three 
months rigorous imprisonment on the ground that the theft of electricity 
to the exhmt of an amount of Rs. 17,35,453.52 was extracted by the 
appellants does not suffer from any error even though the Civil Court had E 
come to the conclusion and passed the decree in favour of the respondent 
State Electricity Board in the Civil Suit for only Rs. 3,07,999.74 as, on 
evaluation of the entire evidence and documents on record, the case of 
theft has been fully proved, the extent of theft of energy really makes no 
difference so far there was theft of energy on a large scale for a long time. F 
Appeal having not been filed against the judgment and decree for Rs. 
3,07,999.74 can not be taken advantage of. (338-G-H; 339-A-B] 
1.3. Giving of 48 hours notice before conducting the raid in a case 
of a surprise raid is not envisaged by the Legislature and otherwise also 
it would be counter productive, because there is a strong possibility of G 
obliterating and/or destroying the entire evidence to connect the accused 
with the crime. [339-C, DJ 
1.4. Suppre.ssion of employment Record or Muster Roll of the 
Industry of the accused an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.