Patna High Court

Md. Maksood AlamversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 21 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The conviction was set aside because the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s connection with the premises and the non‑examination of the investigating officer was fatal to the case.

Summary

The appellant, Md. Maksood Alam, was convicted under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2007 for alleged electricity theft at a plastic manufacturing unit and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a hefty fine. The prosecution’s case relied on the testimony of the raiding party and the disclosure of a caretaker, Anil Pandey, who was later found innocent, without producing the seized equipment or establishing the appellant’s ownership of the premises. The defence argued that the investigating officer was not examined, independent witnesses were not recorded, and the statutory procedure under Section 126 of the Electricity Act for calculating loss was not followed. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s possession, control, or ownership of the premises and that the non‑examination of the investigating officer was fatal to the case. It also held that the failure to produce seized articles and the improper calculation of loss rendered the conviction unsustainable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and allowed the appeal, discharging the appellant and his sureties from bail bond liabilities.

Issues considered

The prosecution must establish the appellant’s possession, control, or ownership of the premises alleged to be used for electricity theft.
Whether the non‑examination of the investigating officer deprives the accused of a fair trial and defeats the prosecution’s case.
Whether the failure to produce seized equipment as best evidence violates the evidentiary burden on the prosecution.
Whether the calculation of loss and imposition of fine complied with Section 126 of the Electricity Act and the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007.

Legislation cited

Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 135

Subjects

electricity theft
Section 135
possession and control
investigating officer examination
evidentiary burden
fine calculation
procedural compliance

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.168 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2011 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya
======================================================
Md. Maksood Alam, S/o Md. Sharif Alam @ Md. Sharif Ansari, R/o - Janpur,
P.S.- BodhGaya, District- Gaya

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sumeet Kr. Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Deepali Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anmol Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Vikram, Adv.
Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 21-01-2026

The present appeal has been preferred against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.03.2014

passed by the Court of Special Judge, Electricity, Magadh Area,

Gaya, in Trial No. 208/13/189/14 arising out of G.R. No. (E) 49

of 2011. The appellant has been convicted under Section 135(1)

of the Electricity Act, 2007, and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine, he has

been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

The trial court further directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
2/22

43,77,888/- × 3 = Rs. 1,31,33,664/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty-

One Lakh Thirty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Four) as

fine on the ground of loss caused to the Electricity Department

owing to the commission of electricity theft by him.

Prosecution Story :-

2. The prosecution story, in brief, as appears from

the FIR, is as follows:-

On 24.08.2011, at about 3:30 P.M., the informant,

along with other members of the raiding party constituted by the

Electricity Board vide Order No. XII, Misc. No. 109/87-682,

conducted a raid at village Janpur, which falls under Bodh Gaya

Police Station in Gaya District. At that time, the Deputy

Executive Magistrate, Sureshwar Kumar Mehta (PW-7), A.S.I.

Om Prakash Singh, and other armed forces deputed for assisting

in the raid were also present along with the raiding team. It has

been further alleged in the FIR that the raiding party found a

plastic manufacturing unit being run by the occupant at the

alleged premises, where theft of electricity was being

committed. While committing the offence, electricity was being

consumed from an LT line through illegal means, and in this

regard, several articles were seized. As per the FIR, the

appellant was alleged to have been running the said plastic
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
3/22

manufacturing unit by illegally using electricity at village

Janpur, Bodh Gaya, in Gaya District. According to the

Electricity Department, the appellant’s electricity connection

had already been disconnected on account of non-payment of

dues, and due to this reason, he started using electricity by

fixing a toka on the LT line in an illegal manner. His electricity

connection pertained to his godown situated at Godam Road,

Bodh Gaya Market. In the FIR, the loss caused to the Electricity

Department on account of the alleged act of the appellant was

assessed to be Rs. 43,77,888/-. The FIR further reveals that at

the time of raid, one person, namely Anil Pandey, was found

present at the alleged premises. According to the informant, he

was the caretaker of the appellant and was apprehended at the

spot. The raiding party seized all relevant articles, the details of

which are mentioned in the seizure list (Exhibit-2) attached to

the FIR. On the basis of a written application filed by Gauri

Shankar Prasad, an Executive Engineer of the Electricity

Department, a formal FIR bearing Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 158

of 2011 was registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,

2003 against the apprehended co-accused Anil Pandey and the

appellant, Md. Maksood Alam.

2.1. In the seizure list, several articles seized from
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
4/22

the spot, such as a starter, four motors of different HP capacities,

and PVC wires, were shown as recovered. As per the seizure

list, altogether seven persons were members of the raiding party.

3. After completion of the investigation, the police

did not chargesheet the co-accused, Anil Pandey, showing him

to be innocent, while the appellant was charge-sheeted for the

offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The learned

Special Court took cognizance of the said offence upon

submission of the charge-sheet, and the appellant was

summoned to face trial for the said offence vide order dated

13.02.2013, as recorded in the order sheet of the trial court. The

order sheet further indicates that the accusation relating to the

alleged offence was explained to the appellant. However, no

formal charge was framed against the appellant, which has been

confirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor after

perusing the entire case record of the trial court.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined

altogether the following eight witnesses : -

PW-1 Ravindra Kumar A member of the raiding party
PW-2 Pankaj Prasad A member of the raiding party
PW-3 Gauri Shankar Prasad The informant as well as member
of the raiding party
PW-4 Smt. Jyoti Kumari A member of the raiding party
PW-5 Jitendra Kumar Manjhi A member of the raiding party
PW-6 Anil Choudhary A member of the raiding party
PW-7 Sureshwar Kr. Mehta The then Deputed Executive
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
5/22

Magistrate-cum-Block
Agriculture Officer and also a
member of the raiding party
PW-8 Shiv Kumar A formal witness

5. In addition to the ocular evidence, the

prosecution proved and accepted the following documents as

documentary evidence :-

Ext –1 Written FIR
Ext –2 Seizure list
Ext -3 Signature of one witness namely Jitendra Kumar Manjhi
(PW-5) on the seizure list
Ext-3A Signature of one witness namely Anil Choudhary (PW-6) on
the seizure list
Ext-4 Formal FIR
Ext-5 An Indemnity Bond of Rs. 50,000/- given by the appellant
on 12.06.2012

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the

statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, affording him an opportunity

to explain the material circumstances appearing against him

from the prosecution evidences, which were denied by him.

While recording his statement, the appellant claimed himself to

be innocent but did not take any specific defence.

7. The appellant did not adduce any defence evidence,

either ocular or documentary, in support of his case.

8. While convicting the appellant for the alleged

offence, the learned trial court placed reliance upon the evidence

of the members of the raiding party, including Exhibit-2, which
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
6/22

shows recovery of the alleged articles from the alleged

premises. The trial court further relied upon the appellant’s

application filed by him for releasing the seized articles treating

it as an his admission to the extent that the seized articles

belonged to him. According to the findings of the trial court, the

appellant failed to show any cogent reason as to why the

prosecution witnesses would falsely implicate him. As regards

proof of the alleged premises as to belonging to the appellant,

the trial court observed that PW-1 to PW-6, who were

employees of the Electricity Department, could not be expected

to narrate the exact Khata number and Plot number of the

alleged premises. The trial court further held that non-

examination of the Investigating Officer was not fatal to the

prosecution case, as there were only minor contradictions in the

testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial court

also observed that the appellant failed to establish his principal

defence that the alleged premises belonged to one Sukhdeo

Manjhi.

9. Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, assisted by Mrs.

Deepali Singh, learned counsels for the appellant, and Mr.

Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State, are present and heard at length. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
7/22

impugned judgment and the evidences available on the record of

the trial court, including the statement of the appellant, have

been perused.

Submission on behalf of the appellant :-

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that admittedly the appellant was not found present at

the alleged premises at the time of the raid. The liability for

illegal use of electricity with the help of the seized equipments

was fastened upon the appellant mainly on the basis of the

disclosure made by one Anil Pandey, who was apprehended by

the raiding party at the alleged place. Such an approach,

according to learned counsel, was erroneous. It is further

submitted that the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to

establish the appellant’s possession, control, or title over the

alleged premises. Before the trial court, the prosecution also

failed to produce the seized materials without offering any

explanation. The provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act

were not followed by the employees of the Electricity

Department, including the informant, who were members of the

raiding party, either at the time of inspection or while

calculating the alleged loss to the Electricity Department on

account of electricity theft.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
8/22

10.1. Learned counsel further submits that the

Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution,

which seriously prejudiced the appellant in defending himself,

particularly in relation to the allegation that the alleged premises

were in the possession and control of the appellant at the time of

the raid. It is also contended that the raiding party failed to

associate any independent witness during the search and seizure

proceedings, despite the presence of several independent

persons at the spot, none of whom had expressed unwillingness

to join the process.

Submission on behalf of learned APP :-

11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State submits that during the trial, the

appellant filed an application claiming ownership of the seized

electrical equipments and sought release of the same in his

favour. Vide order dated 10.04.2012, the said application was

allowed, and the seized articles were released in favour of the

appellant. This, according to learned APP, is sufficient to

establish that the alleged premises, where electricity was being

illegally used, were under the possession and control of the

appellant for running a plastic manufacturing unit. It is further

argued that all the prosecution witnesses, who were members of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
9/22

the raiding party, fully supported the case of the prosecution,

particularly with regard to establishing that the alleged premises

belonged to the appellant. The learned APP contends that the

FIR itself is sufficient to prove that the alleged premises

belonged to the appellant and that the disclosure made by Anil

Pandey, who was apprehended at the spot, clearly revealed the

appellant’s possession and control over the alleged plastic

manufacturing unit.

11.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further

argued that non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not

fatal to the prosecution in the present case, as all the material

prosecution witnesses, particularly the Executive Magistrate,

who was made a member of the raiding party under Letter No.

3474 dated 16.08.2011 issued by the District Magistrate, fully

supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that there

is no illegality in the impugned judgment and the present appeal

is devoid of merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

Consideration and analysis :-

12. The first and foremost contention raised by

learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution failed to

establish the appellant’s connection with the alleged premises,

which was shown to be used for running a plastic manufacturing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
10/22

unit. In support of this contention, it has been argued that, as per

the prosecution case, when the raiding party comprising

employees of the Electricity Department and the Deputy

Executive Magistrate (PW-7) conducted the raid at the alleged

premises, several independent persons had gathered at the spot.

However, admittedly, none of them was made a witness to the

search and seizure proceedings, despite the fact that none of

them had expressed any unwillingness to participate in the

process. In this regard, the evidence of PW-1 to PW-7 assumes

significance.

13. The second contention raised by learned counsel

for the appellant is that the Investigating Officer was not

examined by the prosecution, and such non-examination has

seriously prejudiced the appellant. It is submitted that in the

present case relating to theft of electricity at a particular

premises, the prosecution was required to establish the

appellant’s connection with the said premises, especially when it

is an admitted position that the appellant was not present at the

time when the raid was conducted.

13.1. It has further been argued that, according to the

prosecution case, at the time of the raid, one person, namely

Anil Pandey, was found at the spot and was shown to be the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
11/22

caretaker of the appellant. He was also named as a co-accused in

the FIR, and primarily on the basis of his alleged disclosure, the

appellant was made an accused and the premises in question

were shown to be in his possession and control for running a

plastic manufacturing unit. However, during the course of

investigation, Anil Pandey was found to be innocent and was

not sent up for trial by the police. It is contended that Anil

Pandey was the most material witness to establish the

appellant’s possession or control over the alleged premises.

Despite this, neither the prosecution nor the trial court exercised

its power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

to summon and examine him as a witness to verify the

prosecution’s allegations, particularly with regard to the

appellant’s connection with the alleged premises. In such

circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer

to examine independent witnesses who had gathered at the time

of the raid or the persons residing in the vicinity of the alleged

premises in order to establish the appellant’s possession and

control over the said place. But, no such attempt was made.

Therefore, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, who

could have clarified the appellant’s connection with the alleged

premises, proved fatal to the prosecution case and also seriously
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
12/22

prejudiced the appellant, as he was deprived of his valuable

right to cross-examine the Investigating Officer regarding his

alleged possession or control over the premises, the exact

location of the premises, and its boundaries.

14. After carefully going through the testimony of the

prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-7) and taking into account

the contents of the FIR and the seizure list, I find substance in

the aforesaid contentions. All the witnesses, who were members

of the raiding party, including the Executive Magistrate-cum-

Block Agriculture Officer (PW-7), deposed before the trial court

that at the time of the raid, one person, namely Anil Pandey, was

found present at the alleged premises and was stated to be the

caretaker of the appellant. The raiding party fastened the

responsibility of illegal use of electricity at the alleged premises

upon the appellant primarily on the basis of the disclosure made

by the said Anil Pandey. However, during investigation, the

police found Anil Pandey to be innocent and, consequently, he

was not sent up for trial. The prosecution witnesses PW-1 to

PW-7 deposed that at the time of the raid, several independent

persons had gathered at the spot, yet none of them was made a

witness to the search and seizure proceedings. It is not the

prosecution’s case that such persons had expressed their
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
13/22

unwillingness to participate in the search proceedings. In such

circumstances, particularly where criminal liability is sought to

be fixed upon a person primarily on the basis of his alleged

connection with the place of occurrence, examination of the

Investigating Officer as a prosecution witness becomes of great

significance, as issues relating to ownership, possession, or

control over the land or premises could have been elucidated

through his testimony and tested through cross-examination. In

the present case, the Investigating Officer was not examined by

the prosecution, thereby depriving the appellant of his valuable

right to cross-examine him, especially on the crucial aspect of

the appellant’s alleged connection or possession over the

premises as disclosed by Anil Pandey. Hence, non-examination

of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the

appellant. It is also an admitted position that the appellant was

not present at the alleged premises at the time of the raid. In

such a situation, the Investigating Officer was expected to take

effective steps to establish the appellant’s connection,

possession, or control over the premises where electricity was

allegedly being used illegally. However, no such effort is

evident from the record.

14.1. Among the raiding party members, PW-7, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
14/22

Block Agriculture Officer, who was deputed under the order of

the District Magistrate as an Executive Magistrate to accompany

the raiding team, is an important witness. He stated in his

examination-in-chief that at the time of the raid, one employee,

namely Anil Pandey, was found at the premises and he refused

to disclose the name of his owner. However, in his cross-

examination, PW-7 stated that Pandey Ji later disclosed the

name of the appellant. Thus, this witness did not remain

consistent in his testimony. PW-7 further admitted in his cross-

examination that he did not see the appellant committing theft of

electricity and that he named the appellant mainly on the basis

of information supplied by Anil Pandey. He also admitted that

no document showing the appellant’s title or ownership over the

alleged premises was produced at the spot. The other

prosecution witnesses deposed in similar terms regarding the

source of their knowledge about the appellant’s alleged

involvement in the theft of electricity at the premises in

question.

14.2. In view of the above, the prosecution has failed

to establish the appellant’s connection either in the form of his

possession or control, or ownership over the alleged premises

where electricity was allegedly being used illegally.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
15/22

Accordingly, I find substance and merit in the first two

contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.

15. The third contention raised by learned counsel

for the appellant is that the alleged act was treated as punishable

under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act and, considering the

nature of the allegation, the offence would fall under Section

135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, which is punishable with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or

with fine, or with both. It is contended that in view of the nature

of punishment prescribed, a formal charge ought to have been

framed against the appellant. But the learned trial court merely

explained the substance of the accusation without framing a

charge, which, according to the appellant, has seriously

prejudiced his defence and vitiated the entire trial.

16. Upon perusal of the record, I find no substance

in the aforesaid contention. Although the alleged offence under

Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act is punishable with

imprisonment which may extend to three years, the appellant

has failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice which is

claimed to have caused to him merely on account of non-

framing of a formal charge. From the evidences on record, it

appears that the appellant defended himself effectively and was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
16/22

fully aware of the nature of the accusation levelled against him.

Therefore, the omission to frame a formal charge has not

vitiated the trial.

17. The fourth contention raised by learned counsel

for the appellant is that, as per the seizure list appended to the

FIR, several electrical equipments, such as wires, motors, and

starters, were allegedly seized from the premises, but none of

these seized articles was produced before the trial court. It is

submitted that the prosecution is not entitled to the benefit of the

proviso appended to Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act to

draw the adverse presumption that electricity was being

consumed or used illegally by the appellant with the aid of the

seized articles. It is argued that for drawing such a presumption,

the prosecution was required to prove the existence and

recovery of the alleged articles, for which the seized equipments

constituted the best evidence but the failure of the prosecution to

produce the seized articles before the trial court, without any

explanation, operates against the prosecution case.

17.1. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned

counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in Mahaveer vs. State of

Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
17/22

2180. The relevant paragraph No. 13, upon which reliance has

been placed, is reproduced hereinbelow:

“13. A perusal of Section 39 of the Act
reveals that any person who dishonestly abstracts,
consumes or uses any energy commits theft of energy.
The second part of the Section provides that if it is
proved that any artificial means or the means that
have not been authorised by the licensee, are used in
such theft of energy till the contrary is proved, it shall
be assumed and presumed that such theft has been
committed by the consumer. What is obvious from the
above is that 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. In
other words, the presumption is not of automatic
application, and instead, something is required to be
established for it to apply. In the instant case,
therefore, it must be established by the MSEB that an
artificial means had been employed.”

18. I find force in the aforesaid contention. The seized

articles, such as wires, motors, starters, etc., ought to have been

produced before the trial court by the prosecution as production

of the seized materials is of vital importance in cases of

electricity theft, particularly when the alleged offender was

admittedly not found present at the place of occurrence at the

time of raid and has taken the defence that he had no connection

with the alleged premises and that the premises were in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
18/22

possession of some other person, as in the present case.

18.1. It is settled law that where the commission of an

offence is based upon the use of specific equipment or materials

which have been seized by the police, the best evidence would

be the seized articles themselves, which ought to have been

produced during trial and marked as material exhibits. In this

regard, I would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, passed in Jitendra and Another vs. State of

M.P., reported in (2004) 10 SCC 562, wherein, in paragraph No.

6, it has been held as under:

“6. In our view,………….. The best
evidence would have been the seized materials which
ought to have been produced during the trial and
marked as material objects. There is no explanation
for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence
as to their features and production of panchnama
does not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the
prosecution, particularly where the offence is
punishable with a stringent sentence as under the
NDPS Act. In this case, we notice that panchas have
turned hostile so the panchnama is nothing but a
document written by the police officer
concerned…….”

18.2. During the course of arguments, learned APP

could not furnish any plausible explanation for non-production

of the seized articles before the trial court. Though it was

contended that the appellant had filed an application before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
19/22

trial court seeking release of the seized articles in his favour,

which was allowed, and that such conduct amounts to

appellant’s admission of ownership over the seized articles as

well as the premises.

18.3. The above submission made by learned APP

cannot be accepted. From perusal of the trial court’s record, it is

evident that although such an application was filed, however,

the prosecution cannot be absolved of its primary and

unshiftable burden to establish the appellant’s possession,

control, or ownership over the alleged premises where

electricity was allegedly being used illegally. Mere filing of

such an application does not ipso facto establish that only the

appellant was responsible for running the alleged plastic

manufacturing unit by illegal consumption of electricity,

particularly when the prosecution failed to adduce satisfactory

ocular or documentary evidence to establish his connection with

the premises. Moreover, the said application was neither

exhibited during trial nor was the appellant afforded an

opportunity to explain the circumstances under which the

application was filed. In such circumstances, it would be wholly

unsafe and improper to fasten criminal liability upon the

appellant merely on the basis of the said application.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
20/22

19. The fifth contention raised by learned counsel

for the appellant is that while calculating the loss allegedly

caused to the Electricity Department, the mandatory provisions

of Section 126 of the Electricity Act as well as the procedure

prescribed under Clause 11.2.3 of the Bihar Electricity Supply

Code, 2007, framed under the Electricity Act, 2003, were not

followed by the raiding party.

20. I find substance in the aforesaid contention. The

FIR and the seizure list do not disclose the method adopted for

calculating the alleged loss to the Electricity Department. As per

Section 126 of the Electricity Act, upon inspection, if the

Assessing Officer comes to the conclusion that a person is

indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he is required to

make a provisional assessment to the best of his judgment and

serve the same upon the concerned person or the person in

charge of the premises, thereby affording an opportunity to file

objections.

20.1. In the present case, neither the FIR nor the

seizure memo demonstrates compliance with the provisions of

Section 126 of the Electricity Act. Nevertheless, the learned trial

court, relying mainly on the alleged loss of Rs. 43,77,888/-

shown in the FIR, imposed a fine of Rs. 1,31,33,664/- upon the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
21/22

appellant. Such an approach is legally unsustainable. Before

fastening such heavy financial liability, the trial court was

required to satisfy itself regarding the correctness of the method

adopted for calculating the loss and the due compliance of the

mandatory statutory provisions, which was not done in the

present case.

Conclusion :-

21. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed

hereinabove and the evidences adduced by the prosecution, I am

constrained to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to

establish the appellant’s connection, possession, control, or

ownership over the alleged premises where the plastic

manufacturing unit was allegedly being run by illegal

consumption of electricity. The very foundation upon which

liability was sought to be fastened upon the appellant is fragile

and unreliable. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer

proved fatal to the prosecution, particularly when the alleged

disclosure of Anil Pandey, who was subsequently found

innocent, formed the basis of implicating the appellant. The

prosecution also failed to explain why independent witnesses

were not associated with the search and seizure proceedings

despite their presence at the spot. Further, the prosecution could
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.168 of 2014 dt.21-01-2026
22/22

not justify compliance with the provisions of Section 126 of the

Electricity Act while calculating the alleged loss, which was

relied upon by the trial court to impose an exorbitant fine.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed against the appellant are not sustainable in the

eyes of law and are hereby set aside. The appeal stands allowed.

22. The appellant is on bail, accordingly, he and his

sureties are discharged from the liabilities arising out of their

respective bail bonds.

23. Let the records of the trial court along with a

copy of this judgment be transmitted forthwith to the trial court

for necessary compliance.

(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.01.2026
Transmission Date 27.01.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…