STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH MSEDCLversusABDUL RAJJAK ABDUL GANI PARKAR -Dead - Abated AND ORS

                                                                        8-ALS-51-52-2025 (CR) @.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (STATE) NO. 51 OF 2025

                   State of Maharashtra through M.S.E.D.C.L.
                   Kalyan Police Station                                             ...Applicant
                          V/s.
SNEHA
                   1. Abdul Rajjak Abdul Gani Parkar
NITIN              Dead-abated
CHAVAN
                   2. Wajid Abdul Rajjak Parkar & Anr.                               ...Respondents
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date:
2026.08.21
19:48:25 +0530
                                                         WITH

                        APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (STATE) NO.52 OF 2025

                   State of Maharashtra through M.S.E.D.C.L.
                   Kalyan Police Station                                             ...Applicant
                          V/s.
                   Wajid Abdul Rajjak Parkar and Anr.                                ..Respondents

                                                     ***
                   Mr. Harinder Toor a/w Ms. Vidhi Bhasin and Ms. Druti Mr. Dheer
                   Sampat i/b. M/s. M.V. Kini and Co. for the Applicant-
                   M.S.E.D.C.L.
                   Mr. N.V. Sawant for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in ALS/51/2025 and for
                   Respondent No.1 in ALS/52/2025.
                   Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for Respondent/State.
                                                     ***
                                            CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                    DATE :    21st AUGUST, 2026
                   P.C. :


                   1.             Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.


                   2.             ALS No. 51/2025 is filed seeking leave to file appeal against
                   order of acquittal dated 06.03.2025 passed by Special Court, Mangaon
                   in Special MSEB Case No. 3 of 2018 and ALS No. 52/2025 is filed
                   seeking leave to file appeal against order of the same date passed by

                   Sneha Chavan                                                               1
                                                     8-ALS-51-52-2025 (CR) @.doc



same Court in Special MSEB Case No.2/2018. By impugned orders, the
Respondents / accused are acquitted from offence of theft of electricity
punishable under 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.


3.             Respondent No.1 in both appeals were using electricity for the
purpose of running an ice factory at the concerned sites. According to
the Applicant, both the Respondents indulged into electricity theft and
therefore, raid was conducted by flying squad having proper authority
to conduct the raid and file complaint. According to the Applicant, the
raid was video-graphed where representative of the consumer showed
that with the help of remote control, a circuit inside CT (current
transformer) can be accessed for tampering with the current supply to
meter, thereby affecting the meter reading. According to the Applicant,
in presence of panchas, the box containing meter and CT were opened,
x-ray was conducted leading to discovery of an inside circuit which
permitted such tampering.


4.             Accordingly, police complaint was filed which led to
investigation and trial. By the impugned orders, Respondents in both
appeals are acquitted of offence punishable under Section 135 of the
Electricity Act, 2003.


5.             Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on going
through the impugned orders as well as other material produced on
record, the case for grant of leave is made out, for following reasons.
(i)     It has come on record through witness Mr. Arvind B. Ghase (in
both cases) that both CT (current Transformers) were not provided by
the Applicant company and it was procured by the consumers.
(ii)    In the appeals, a specific stand is taken by the Applicant that the


Sneha Chavan                                                               2
                                                   8-ALS-51-52-2025 (CR) @.doc



entire raid conducted by the flying squad was video-graphed including
consumer representative showing use of remote control for tampering.
(iii)   X-ray of CTs was conducted and the receipt of the x-ray clinic is
produced on record.
(iv)    Learned Counsel for the Applicant has made categorical
statement that video recording CD as well as x-ray reports were given to
the Investigating Officer, however the same has not been brought on
record.
(v)     The contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in
both the appeals that inspection report itself shows that when the box
was opened, seal was in OK condition, which indicates that the meter as
well as CT were not tampered and it is not even the case of the
Applicant that the box was tampered. Considering the fact that CT itself
is not provided by the Applicant and it is procured by the consumer,
such argument will have to be tested in the context of other evidence on
record.
(vi)    This is a case of theft of electricity, which is a matter of serious
concern. It is seen from the nature of allegation that modus operendi
adopted for electricity theft was using modern electronic technology.
Such cases require better quality of evidence than just oral evidence of
the concerned witnesses. It is seen that modern and technical evidence
in the form of videography CD and x-ray report have not been produced
by the prosecution, for reasons best known to investigating officer.
(vii) It is informed to the Court that the loss assessed by the Applicant
company because of theft in question, is about Rs.84 Lakh and 88 Lakh.
(viii) One of the reason that has weighed with the Special Judge is
about the officer conducting raid not being from the particular division.
In this respect, submission of the Applicant is that it is matter of
administrative convenience. Whether such technical objection can be


Sneha Chavan                                                             3
                                                   8-ALS-51-52-2025 (CR) @.doc



fatal to the case of the prosecution, so far as commission of actual
offence is concerned, will have to be tested while hearing the appeal
with entire evidence.


6.             In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons
indicated above, the applications are allowed. The Applicant is
permitted to file appeal challenging the impugned orders dated
06.03.2025 in Sp. MSEB Case No. 2 and 3 of 2018.


7.             Appeals are admitted. Learned Counsel for the Respondent
No.1 waives service in both appeals.


                                            (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Sneha Chavan                                                             4