High Court of Gujarat
as not pressed)versusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The revision applications are allowed and the FIRs and the Sessions Judge’s orders are quashed as the applicants were not shown to be in charge of the firms or to have participated in the alleged theft.
Summary
The applicants, partners of two textile firms, were charged under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for alleged electricity theft after meters were seized during a raid. Two FIRs were filed for the same alleged offence, and the applicants sought anticipatory bail and later discharge, which was rejected by the Sessions Judge. On revision, the High Court examined whether the partners could be held vicariously liable under Section 149 of the Electricity Act and analogous provisions, finding no specific averments or evidence that they were in charge of the firms’ business or involved in the meter tampering. The court noted that the FIRs were duplicate, the accused had paid the bills, and one accused had died, rendering the proceedings untenable. Consequently, the revision applications were allowed and the FIRs and the Sessions Judge’s orders were quashed and set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the two FIRs filed for the same alleged electricity theft constitute an impermissible duplication of prosecution.
- Whether partners of a firm can be held vicariously liable for offences under the Indian Electricity Act without specific averments of control or responsibility.
- Whether the Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the discharge applications in light of the lack of evidence linking the applicants to the alleged meter tampering.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 397, s. 401
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940s. 34
- Electricity Act, 2003s. 135, s. 138, s. 149
- Employees' Provident Funds Acts. 14A
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 141
Subjects
electricity theftvicarious liabilitypartnershipSection 135criminal revisionduplicate FIRquashCrPCSection 149Section 141
Judgment
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 656 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 657 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NISHITH MAGANLAL PATEL (petition disposed of as not pressed) & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DELETED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR K S CHANDRANI(6674) for the Applicant(s) No. 2
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 01/05/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1) By way of present revision applications under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short “CrPC”), the applicants – accused have prayed for quashing
and setting aside of the judgment and orders dated 17.05.2013
rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jetpur, in Special
(GEBCC) Nos. 51 and 52 of 2012 as well as FIRs registered with
GUVNL Police Station, vide C.R.Nos.1039 and 1041 of 2010 for the
offence under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
Page 1 of 11
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
2) It is the case of the prosecution is that, the applicants are the
partners of firms namely “Anand Textile Printers” at GIDC,
Dhareshwar and “Polite Processors” situated at GIDC, Ankleshwar,
Taluka Jetpur, District Rajkot. That on 16.04.2010, raiding team of
PGVCL visited the unit of the applicants and made Rojkam and
seized two electric meters from the said units in the presence of
the applicant No.1 for the alleged theft of electricity. Pursuant to
the same, two FIRs came to be filed at GUVNL Police Station, vide
C.R.No.1039 and 1041 of 2010 for the offence under Section 135
of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for the theft of electricity.
3) Apropos the FIRs, the applicants approached learned Sessions
Court by preferring anticipatory bail, which came to be allowed on
condition to deposit the bill amounts by way of cheque.
Thereafter, chargesheet came to be filed under Sections 135, 138
and 150 of the Act.
4) The applicants also preferred discharge application/s in Special
C.C. No.51 and 52 of 2012 on the ground that there cannot be two
FIRs for the same offence and as the total amount of the bills were
paid to the PGVCL, which came to be rejected on 17.05.2013.
Hence, these revisions have been filed before this court.
5) Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the
employees of ‘Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited’ visited the
applicants’ units and seized two electricity meters from the same
premises; however, for the same alleged offence, two separate
FIRs were registered on the same day at GUVNL Police Station
being II-1039 of 2010 and II-C.R. No.1041 of 2010 under identical
provisions of the Electricity Act, which is unconstitutional and
liable to be quashed. It is further contended that applicant No.1
Page 2 of 11
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
managed the business affairs of the partnership firm “Polite
Processors,” whereas applicant Nos.2 and 3 have no role in
conducting or functioning of the units and were arraigned as
accused merely to exert pressure. The applicants deny their
involvement in the alleged theft of electricity, asserting that
criminal liability cannot be fastened upon them; that the seizure of
the meters occurred in the presence of applicant No.1, and no
presumption of knowledge can be attributed to the other
applicants who do not even visit the premises and are only nominal
partners. It was also argued that the applicants, being laypersons,
are unaware of the technical procedures adopted by Gujarat Urja
Vikas Nigam Limited in detecting alleged theft, and since even the
testing laboratory and its staff are under the control of the same
authority, there exists a likelihood of bias or erroneous findings
beyond the comprehension or ability of the applicants to
effectively challenge, and therefore, the impugned orders of the
learned Sessions Judge and FIRs deserve to be quashed and set
aside.
Over and above the above submissions, learned counsel for
the applicants has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs.
Rasipuram Textiles (P) Ltd., reported in 2008 LawSuit (SC) 2422
and this Court in the case of Rajeshkumar Khimjibhai Jakasania &
Ors, reported in 2023 LawSuit (Guj.) 750.
6) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 – PGVCL has opposed the
present revision applications and contended that, this is not a
simple case of faulty error in the electric meters. Tampering with
the meters was found, MRI data was examined and upon
satisfaction of the electricity theft by the applicants, bills came to
Page 3 of 11
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
be issued to the applicants. Rojakm was also done and accused
No.1 has put his signature and CF paramateria is not a ground to
discharge the applicants from the offence of theft. He has further
submitted that the applicants are the partners of the firms and
partnership firm has taken undue advantage and they were only
partners of the alleged firm. As tampering with the meters was
found, collected sufÏcient evidence and then chargesheet came to
be filed. In view of the above, Mr. Dave submits that, as the same is
a question of trial, present revision applications do not deserve
any consideration and hence, the same may be dismissed.
He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court
rendered in Special Criminal Application No.4737/2014
(Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited Vs. State of Gujarat &
Anr. and has prayed to dismiss the revision applications.
7) Learned APP has opposed the applications and by adopting the
submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2
contended that, the applicants by using external devise have
committed theft by tampering with the meters and thereby,
committed an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and
caused monetary loss and hence, present applications are liable to
be dismissed.
8) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the record, it appears that, at the instance of
respondent No. 2, complaints under Section 135 of the Indian
Electricity Act was filed against the applicants. After investigation,
chargesheets came to be filed alleging that the applicants being
partners of the firms namely “Anand Textile Printers” and “Polite
Processors” since 1982 and 1992 respectively, and having
commercial electricity connections, had tampered with the electric
Page 4 of 11
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
meters by using external devices or circuit mechanisms. It is
alleged that such manipulation prevented the meters from
recording actual electricity consumption, resulting in theft
amounting to Rs. 30,66,349.46 and Rs. 45,01,594.70, respectively.
In this regard, two separate complaints were filed.
9) It further appears that the raiding team of PGVCL visited the
premises of the applicants on 16.04.2010, whereas the complaints
were lodged on 20.04.2010, i.e., after a delay of four days.
Pursuant thereto, the applicants were summoned by the learned
Sessions Court in Special (GEB) Criminal Case Nos.51 and 52 of
2012. From the Rojkam, it emerges that average bills were issued
and subsequently, paid by the applicants. It is also noted that
accused No. 1 Nishith Maganlal Patel expired during the pendency
of the revision application, and therefore, the proceedings stood
abated against him. A further perusal of the Rojkam indicates that
accused No. 1 signed documents in the capacity of
owner/proprietor of the factory, and not as a partner of any
partnership firm. There is no documentary evidence on record to
demonstrate that the proceedings were initiated against the
applicants in their capacity as partners of the said firms. Moreover,
no material appears to have been collected during the raid to
substantiate the existence or role of the partnership firms. All
documents prepared at the time of inspection reflect the status of
a proprietorship concern, with accused No. 1 signing as proprietor.
Subsequently, post facto approval was obtained, wherein the
names of partners were introduced. Even in the chargesheet, there
is no clear assertion regarding the role of the partnership firms or
the manner in which the present applicants actively participated in
the alleged offence of electricity theft.
Page 5 of 11
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
10) Further, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
applicants were partners of the firms, it is noted that a power of
attorney had been executed in favour of Nishith Patel. Mere
holding of the position of partner does not automatically render a
person vicariously liable. To fasten vicarious liability, the
prosecution must establish, with cogent material, the active
involvement or participation of the accused in the commission of
the offence. In absence of such evidence, mere designation or
status as a partner is insufÏcient to attract criminal liability. In this
regard, reference is required to be made on Section 149 of the
Electricity Act, which reads as under:
“Section 149. (Offences by companies): --- (1) Where an offence under
this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the
time the offence was committed was in charge of and was
responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the
company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of
having committed the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded
against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in
this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment
if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge
or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission
of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a
company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with
the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the
part of any director, manager, secretary or other ofÏcer of the
company, such director, manager, secretary or other ofÏcer shall also
be deemed to be guilty of having committed such offence and shall
be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,- (a) "company" means
a body corporate and includes a firm or other association of
individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in
the firm.”
11) Said revision is paramateria with Section 141 of the N.I Act.
Further, section 14A of the EPF Act reads as under:
“14A. Offences by companies.—
(1) If the person committing an offence under this Act, the Scheme or
[the [Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme] is a company, every
person, who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of,
and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business
of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty
of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and
Page 6 of 11
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-
section shall render any such person liable to any punishment, if he
proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or
that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such
offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an
offence under the Act , the Scheme or [the [Pension Scheme or the
Insurance Scheme]] has been committed by a company and it is
proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any
director or manager, secretary or other ofÏcer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or other ofÏcer shall be deemed to be
guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,— (a)“company”
means any body corporate and includes a firm and other association
of individuals; and (b)“director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner
in the firm.]
Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 reads as under:
34. Offences by companies.— (1) Where an offence under this Act has
been committed by a company, every person who at the time the
offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the
company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as
the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be
liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided
that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such
person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that
the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he
exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such
offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an
offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is
proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any
director, manager, secretary or other ofÏcer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or other ofÏcer shall also be deemed to
be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section—
(a)“company” means a body corporate, and includes a firm or other
association of individuals; and
(b)“director” in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.” At this
stage, section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is also
relevant to be referred to, which reads as under: “141. Offences by
companies. — (1) If the person committing an offence under section
138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was
committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for
the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company,
shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
Page 7 of 11
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any
person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due
diligence to prevent the commission of such offence: Provided further
that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by
virtue of his holding any ofÏce or employment in the Central
Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned
or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as
the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this
Chapter.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where any
offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is
proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any
director, manager, secretary or other ofÏcer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or other ofÏcer shall also be deemed to
be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a)“company”
means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of
individuals; and(b)“director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in
the firm. “
Section 141 of the NI Act reads as under:-
Section 141- Offences by companies.
(1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a
company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed,
was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the
conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company,
shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the
offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he
had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission
of such offence:
[Provided further that where a person is nominated as a
Director of a company by virtue of his holding any ofÏce or
employment in the Central Government or State
Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled
by the Central Government or the State Government, as the
case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under
this Chapter.]
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
where any offence under this Act has been committed by a
company and it is proved that the offence has been
committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director,
Page 8 of 11
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
manager, secretary or other ofÏcer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or other ofÏcer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, --
(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a
firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the
firm.”
12) Hence, merely because present applicants are partners of the
firms, the applicants cannot be held vicariously responsible and
prosecuted. To connect the accused persons with an offence,
complainant must have to show that how and in what manner the
present applicants being the partners of the firm and are
answerable for the conduct and business of the firms. Herein, in
the complaint, nowhere the specific role of the present applicants
is alleged and merely their names are mentioned as partners and
by virtue of designation the applicants are arraigned as accused in
their individual capacity. The applicants are not full time Directors
or also not getting any remuneration from the firms and only by
virtue of their designation, as a partners, they are arraigned as
accused. To make answerable or responsible the Director or
members of the firms for the administration of the firms,
complainant must have to show that present applicants were
responsible for the day to day affairs of the firms. Mere bald
statement in the complaint is not enough for proceeding against
the applicants.
13) In this regard, I lay my hand on pari materia provision of section
141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua responsibility
and prosecution against Directors in case of company, firm or
association and reference is required to be made to the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals
Page 9 of 11
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89.
14) Even upon reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. Rasipuram
Textiles (P) Ltd., reported in 2008 LawSuit (SC) 2422, which deals
with vicarious liability of Directors of a company, it is well settled
that the complainant must specifically aver and establish that the
accused was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the
business of the company at the relevant time. It is incumbent upon
the complainant not only to make necessary averments in the
complaint but also to substantiate, through material on record,
that the person sought to be prosecuted had a direct role in the
management and operations of the company. In the absence of
such specific averments and in the absence of any material
collected during the course of investigation demonstrating the
involvement of the present applicants, they cannot be held
vicariously liable for the alleged offence. Therefore, the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 are
not acceptable. To that extent, the learned Sessions Judge cannot
be said to have committed any error in dismissing the discharge
application of the accused persons. Even otherwise, assuming that
there was an error in the meter supplied by L&T Company, and
further assuming that the meters were tampered with by use of an
external device, it is noteworthy that the rojkam bears the
signature of accused No. 1 alone, who has expired and that too in
his capacity as a proprietor. Moreover, the entire amount of the
average bills issued by PGVCL has already been paid. On that count
also, present applications deserve due consideration.
15) In wake of aforesaid discussion, present revision applications are
allowed. Impugned judgment and orders dated 17.05.2013
Page 10 of 11
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jetpur, in Special
(GEB) Criminal Case Nos.51 and 52 of 2012 as well as FIRs
registered with GUVNL Police Station, vide C.R.Nos.1039 and 1041
of 2010 are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is
permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/05/2026 18:08:10
Page 11 of 11
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "electricity theft"Sign in to search