Bombay High Court

BALKRISHNA JAGANNATH SHETTYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 17 January 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: R N LADDHA

Holding

The conviction under the Indian Electricity Act is set aside due to lack of evidence establishing the applicant's control of the meter and non‑compliance with statutory procedural safeguards.

Summary

The applicant was convicted under Section 39 read with Section 44(c) of the Indian Electricity Act for alleged tampering of an electricity meter at premises he was said to occupy. The prosecution’s case relied on a BEST employee’s inspection that found the meter seals broken and the meter running slow, and alleged the applicant ran a hotel business there. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to produce any documentary proof of the applicant’s possession or control of the premises, no license or agreement, and the meter box was not secured, making third‑party access plausible. Moreover, the mandatory procedural safeguards for inspection, seizure, sealing and testing of meters were not complied with, and no independent witness was examined. Consequently, the Court held the evidence insufficient to attribute tampering to the applicant and quashed the magistrate’s and sessions judge’s orders, setting aside the conviction.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved that the applicant was in possession or control of the premises and responsible for the electricity meter at the relevant time.
Whether the procedural safeguards and statutory requirements for inspection, seizure, sealing and testing of electricity meters under the Indian Electricity Act were complied with.
Whether the conviction under Section 39 read with Section 44(c) of the Indian Electricity Act can be sustained on the evidence placed before the court.

Legislation cited

Electricity Act — s. 39, 44(c)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 379

Subjects

electricity meter tampering
Indian Electricity Act
procedural safeguards
evidence insufficiency
criminal revision
conviction quashed

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
CHITRA
CHITRA SANJAY
SANJAY SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.01.19
20:16:50
+0530

Chitra Sonawane 19-revn-184-2005.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Revision Application No.184 of 2005

Balkrishna Jagannath Shetty … Applicant.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents.
---
Mr Yasir Khan h/f Mr Sandeep C Kekane for the applicant.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP for the respondent / State.
---
Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.
Date : 17 January 2026.
P.C. :

By the present revision application, the applicant, who
was the original accused, assails the order dated 10 January
2005 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai, in CC
No.111/P/2003; and the judgment and order dated 11 June
2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2005, whereby the
applicant came to be convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 39 read with Section 44 (c) of the Indian
Electricity Act.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant
Page No.1 of 4
____________________________________________

17 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane 19-revn-184-2005.doc

was an employee of the Brihanmumbai Electricity Supply
and Transport Undertaking (BEST). On 7 February 2003,
pursuant to instructions issued by the Deputy Engineer of
BEST, the complainant inspected the electricity meter
installed at the premises allegedly occupied by the applicant.
During the said inspection, it was claimed that the seals and
terminal box of the meter were found in a tampered and
broken condition. Upon testing, the meter was found to be
running slow. Accordingly, the complainant lodged a
complaint against the present applicant and crime came to
be registered vide CR no.37 of 2003 for the offences
punishable under Sections 379 of the IPC read with Sections
39 and 44(c) of the Indian Electricity Act.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant/original
accused and the learned APP for the respondent State.
Perused the entire record and proceedings with their able
assistance.

4. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence, it is evident that
no cogent or reliable evidence has been adduced by the
prosecution to establish that the applicant was, at the
relevant time, in possession of or in control of the premises,

Page No.2 of 4
____________________________________________

17 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane 19-revn-184-2005.doc

or that he was conducting the alleged hotel business under
any authority purportedly granted by PW 3. Although
reference is made to such authority, no documentary
evidence like agreement or license was produced and
proved during the trial. In the present case, the prosecution
has failed to prove that the applicant was the consumer or
occupier responsible for the meter at the relevant time.
Furthermore, the record discloses that the meter box was
not kept under lock and key, thereby rendering the
possibility of access by third parties plausible. The
prosecution has not demonstrated compliance with the
mandatory safeguards and procedural requirements
governing inspection, seizure, sealing and testing of
electricity meters. Significantly, no independent or panch
witness has been examined in support of the alleged seizure
of the electricity meter. The evidence led is thus insufficient
to conclusively establish tampering attributable to the
applicant.

5. In view of the aforesaid infirmities, the impugned
order dated 10 January 2005 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court,
Girgaon, Mumbai, in CC No.111/P/2003; and the judgment
Page No.3 of 4
____________________________________________

17 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane 19-revn-184-2005.doc

and order dated 11 June 2005 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal
No.43 of 2005, are quashed and set aside.

[R.N.Laddha, J.]

Page No.4 of 4
____________________________________________

17 January 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…