LexMAHAVEER versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 381 : 2025 INSC 1206 Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2154-2155 of 2011) 08 October 2025 [Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the acquittal of the appellant-director of the company was correctly reversed by the High Court and whether his conviction u/ss.39 and 44 of the Electricity Act, 1910 for committing theft of energy and for interference with meters or licensee’s works, and for improper use of energy, sustainable. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 1910 – ss.39 and 44 – Theft of energy – Penalty for interference with meters or licensee’s works, and for improper use of energy – Conviction of the appellant-director of the company for the offence punishable u/ss.39 and 44, for committing theft of energy and for interference with meters or licensee’s works, and for improper use of energy by the High Court, reversing the findings of acquittal recorded by the Magistrate – Sustainability: Held: Under s.39, for the presumption against the consumer to take effect, it must be proved that an artificial means or a means not authorised by the licensee had been used in committing the theft – Presumption is not of automatic application, and instead, something is required to be established for it to apply, thus, on facts, it must be established by the MSEB that an artificial means had been employed – None of the five witnesses deposed with complete confidence about the alleged theft of electricity and the use of artificial means therein, by the appellant – Most of the testimonies based on estimation, presumption, approximation or possibilities, which cannot be deemed to be sufficient for proving the theft – As a necessary follow-up of the inability of the prosecution to prove the use of artificial means, the presumption against the * Author 382 [2025] 10 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports consumer, that is, the appellant, not set in motion – Charge u/s.44 is resting on shaky grounds as well – Nothing on record to show that the meter had been injured or tampered with – None of the investigators from the MSEB carried out a practical exercise of checking the holes and the wires, and the possibility of it being actually used for theft, as alleged to have taken place – None of the witnesses or any other third person saw the accused, or, for that matter, any other person connected to the Company, openly tampering with the box – No categorical statement that at the time of installation or any time prior to the inspection of the meter box by officials of the MSEB, there were no holes in the box – There are too many open possibilities for criminal liability to be affixed to any person – s.44 also has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt – Thus, neither ss.39 nor 44 could be established against the appellant – Judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside. [Paras 13-17] Case Law Cited Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat [1996] Supp. 2 SCR 265 : (1996) 9 SCC 225; Satya Narain Prasad v. Bhagwan Ramdas (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 629; Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian [2021] 1 SCR 668 : (2021) 5 SCC 283; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] 1 SCR 981 : 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13 – referred to. List of Acts Electricity Act, 1910. List of Keywords Theft of energy; Interference with meters or licensee’s works; Improper use of energy; Presumption; Use of artificial means; Holes in the box; Criminal liability. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s). 2154-2155 of 2011 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLA Nos. 270 and 346 of 1997 [2025] 10 S.C.R. 383 Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Sunil J. Mathews, Deepak Kore, Ms. Jyoti Rani Chib, Ms. Yashika, Rajeev Singh. Advs. for the Respondents: Ajit Bhasme, Sr. Adv., Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Rohan K Santoshi, Parth Sarathi, Prashant Sharma, Gyanendra Vikram Singh, Ms. Soumya Gulati. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. 1. These appeals, at the instance of the appellant-convict, are directed against the judgment and order dated 15th October, 2010, passed in Criminal Appeal No.270/1997 and Criminal Revision Application No.346/1997, whereby a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.