Acquittal in Theft Case Doesn't Block Unauthorized Energy Usage Proceeding.


21 November 2024 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Theft >> Criminal Law  

The petitioner filed a writ petition in the matter of Castron Technologies Ltd. vs The Damodar Valley Corporation & Others, challenging an order passed by the High Court, which directed the competent authority to make a fresh decision regarding unauthorized use of energy, following the procedures outlined in Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner raised two main arguments:

Acquittal in Criminal Case: The petitioner argued that after being acquitted for the offense of electricity theft under Section 135 of the Act, there should be no further adjudication on unauthorized use of energy. The acquittal was based on the prosecution's failure to prove the theft charge.

 
 

Lack of Civil Liability Determination: The petitioner pointed out that the Special Court, which acquitted them, did not determine civil liability for energy theft under Section 154(5) of the Act, and therefore, the competent authority under Section 126 cannot initiate proceedings.

However, the Court clarified that the acquittal in the criminal case does not prevent the competent authority from initiating proceedings under Section 126 for unauthorized use of energy. The Court further observed that the Special Court did not need to address civil liability because no theft was proven. It emphasized that the matter of unauthorized use of energy remained open, allowing the petitioner to raise objections as per Section 126(3) of the Act. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, with the High Court's directive to follow the due process under the Electricity Act upheld.

 

Section 135, ELECTRICITY ACT - 2003  

ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003