1. Since both these revision and appeal arise out of the judgment dated 23.1.2018 passed by Special Judge (Electricity Act), Durg in Special Criminal Case No. 377/2016, they are being disposed of by this common order. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act reserving liberty with the electricity department to recover the charges of 13,446 watt electricity consumed by the accused in accordance with law.

2. ACQA No. 151/2020 has been filed by the CSPDCL challenging the acquittal of the accused whereas CRR No. 282/2021 has been filed by the accused for setting aside the observation of the trial court whereby the electricity department has been given liberty to recover the charges of electricity consumption from the accused.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.9.2016 a team of the electricity department checked the electric meter and other electrical equipments of the house of the accused and found the electric meter burnt and tampered. The accused was unauthorizedly consuming electricity in excess of the limit by tampering the meter. Hence, after preparing panchanama and spot inspection report, the said meter was seized and sent for examination to the laboratory. Upon examination, it was found that PCB of the meter was burnt, the PT wire of all the three phases were cut from PCB terminal and there was internal tampering in the meter. Thereafter, the electricity department sent a bill amounting to Rs. 8,01,380/-to the accused and a case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act was registered against her.

4. The learned trial Court after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record by the impugned judgment dated 23.1.2018 while acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act reserved liberty with the electricity department to recover the charges of 13,446 watt electricity consumed by the accused in accordance with law.

5. ACQA No. 151/2020: Learned counsel for the appellant/CSPDCL submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is illegal and against the provisions of the Electricity Act. The prosecution proved its case against the accused from oral and documentary evidence. There is no contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW-3 Avinash Chouhan, who is an expert, informed the Court that meter can be tampered without opening the plastic cover whereas PW-1 Ravindra Kumar Goswami, who is not conversant with the facts even as per the Court below, if utters anything contrary is only to be ignored. All the relevant documents were duly acknowledged by the accused who put her signature on it without any protest. However, the Court below failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its correct perspective and acquitted the accused of the said charge. Hence the impugned judgment insofar as it relates to acquittal of the accused under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is liable to be set aside and she be punished accordingly.

Reliance has been placed on the order dated 23.1.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in the matter of Mohd. Haleem Vs. State of UP through Collector/D.M., Distt. Sultanpur & others.

6. CRR No. 282/2021: Learned counsel for the accused has argued that the trial Court after due trial acquitted the accused of the charge of theft of electricity. Learned Special Judge conducted trial for the offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act which does not confer power for determination of civil liability, more particularly when the accused has been acquitted. There is no such provision in the said Act which gives jurisdiction to the Special Judge to direct or to reserve liberty with the electricity department for recovery of amount from the accused against consumption of electricity. Thus, on this point, the learned Special Judge has committed jurisdictional error. Hence the impugned judgment insofar as it relates to giving liberty to the electricity department for recovery of electricity charges from the accused is liable to be set aside.

Reliance has been placed on the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in the matter of Baijanti Bai Vs. M.P. Kshetriya Vidyut Vitran Col Limited reported in 2014(3) MPLJ 580.

7. Learned counsel for both the parties oppose the contentions of each other.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. Learned trial Court minutely examined the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The complainant's witness PW-2 Smt. Seema Soni has stated about the entire proceedings of checking the meter and electrical equipments of the house of the accused. She has admitted that in all the documents she did not obtain signature of the independent witness. She clearly admits in para 10 of her deposition that on the document of spot inspection report Ex.P/7 and panchanama Ex.P/8 she did not obtain the signature of the independent witness except the signature of the departmental officials. She also admits that in the spot inspection report Ex.P/7, no time was mentioned. Learned trial Court minutely scrutinized the evidence of all the witnesses and found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and thus, acquitted her of the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

10. Learned trial Court in para 34 of the impugned judgment observed as under:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

11. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the matter of Mohd. Haleem (supra) observed in para 12 as under:

"12. The conjoint reading of section 135(1A) of 2003 Act and Section 154(5) and 154(6) of 2003 Act makes it clear that assessment of civil liability under section 154 of the Act is not dependent upon ultimate result of complaint filed against the person for commission of offence referred to in Section 135, 140 and 150 of the Act."

12. Section 154 of the Electricity Act reads as under:

"154. Procedure and power of Special Court.-

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under sections 135 to 140 and section 150 shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed.

2. Where it appears to any court in the course of any inquiry or trial that an offence punishable under sections 135 to 140 and section 150 in respect of any offence that the case is one which is triable by a Special Court constituted under this Act for the area in which such case has arisen, it shall transfer such case to such Special Court, and thereupon such case shall be tried and disposed of by such Special Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that it shall be lawful for such Special Court to act on the evidence, if any, recorded by any court in the case of presence of the accused before the transfer of the case to any Special Court:

Provided further that if such Special Court is of opinion that further examination, cross-examination and re-examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded, is required in the interest of justice, it may re-summon any such witness and after such further examination, cross-examination or reexamination, if any, as it may permit, the witness shall be discharged.

3. The Special Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 260 or section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), try the offence referred to in sections 135 to 140 and section 150 in a summary way in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the said Code and the provisions of sections 263 to 265 of the said Code shall, so far as may be, apply to such trial:

Provided that where in the course of a summary trial under this sub-section, it appears to the Special Court that the nature of the case is such that it is undesirable to try such case in summary way, the Special Court shall recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to re-hear the case in the manner Provided by the provisions of the said Code for the trial of such offence:

Provided further that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for a Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

4. A Special Court may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to, any offence tender pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof, and any pardon so tendered shall, for the purposes of section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be deemed to have been tendered under section 307 thereof.

5. The Special Court shall determine the civil liability against a consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of energy or the exact period of theft if determined whichever is less and the amount of civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of civil court.

6. In case the civil liability so determined finally by the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, shall be refunded by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order of the Special Court together with interest at the prevailing Reserve Bank of India prime lending rate for the period from the date of such deposit till the date of payment.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "civil liability" means loss or damage incurred by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, due to the commission of an offence referred to in sections 135 to 140 and section 150."

13. The accused has been acquitted of the charge by the learned trial Court on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against her beyond reasonable doubt but it is an admitted fact that the accused is the consumer of electricity supplied by the electricity department/CSPDCL. Hence the trial Court while acquitting the accused of the said charge, gave liberty to the electricity department to recover the amount of 13,446 watt of electricity consumed by the accused in accordance with law. This finding is according to the provisions of the Electricity Act and assessment of civil liability under Section 154 of the Act is not dependent upon ultimate result of the complaint filed against the person for commission of offence referred to in Sections 135, 140 and 150 of the Act.

14. Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, keeping in view the provisions of Section 154 of the Electricity Act and other relevant provisions of the said Act, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and reserving liberty with the electricity department/CSPDCL to recover the charges of 13,446 watt electricity consumed by the accused in accordance with law.

15. In the result, the revision and the acquittal appeal being without any substance are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed as such.