Allahabad High Court

PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN LIMITEDversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 16 February 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The appellate court held that the trial court's acquittal was reasonable and not perverse, thus the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Ltd appealed the acquittal of Shiv Dutt Sharma in a case under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, alleging electricity theft by meter bypass. The prosecution claimed a load of 1973 watts was being used illegally, but failed to produce the alleged inspection video, seizure memos, or any physical evidence of the bypass. The trial court found these deficiencies created reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the acquittal was perverse or illegal, noting the lack of corroborative documentary evidence and procedural lapses. Citing the principle that appellate interference is warranted only for perverse findings, the Court upheld the trial court's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse, illegal, or based on material error.
Whether the prosecution evidence satisfied the burden of proof for an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Whether procedural lapses such as non‑production of video, absence of seizure memos, and lack of independent witnesses warrant overturning the acquittal.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 372
Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 135

Subjects

electricity theft
Section 135
acquittal
appeal
evidentiary insufficiency
procedural lapse
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 615 of 2024

Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Limited
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Baleshwar Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rahul Pandey

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned
judgment and order dated 15.04.2024 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/
Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Special Case No.520 of 2014,
State of U.P. Vs. Shivdutt Sharma, arising out of FIR No.487 of 2013, under
Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar,
District- Bulandshahr.

2. Heard Sri Satendra Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Baleshwar
Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2.
Prosecution Case :-
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.07.2013 at about 12.05 p.m. a
checking team of the Electricity Department, Bulandshahr headed by
Assistant Engineer(Meter), Sunil Kumar along with lineman Shubhash
Chand and Harish Chand Yadav (Inspector, Vigilance Team-1), Ghaziabad,
Constable Rajendra, Constable Rishi Kumar Prajapati and other officials
inspected the premises of respondent Shiv Dutt Sharma.
4. It is alleged that the respondent was found committing theft of electricity
by bypassing the meter and using a load of 1973 watt for domestic purposes.
The electricity connection was disconnected and a case under Section 135 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 was lodged. After investigation of the case, a
charge-sheet was submitted for offence under Section 135 of the Electricity
Act against the respondent Shiv Dutt Sharma.
Trial Court Findings :-
5. The learned Trial court, after appreciation of evidences on record,
returned a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused.
C372 No. 615 of 2024
2

Point for consideration :-
6. The only question before this Court at the stage of admission is whether
the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court suffers from any
illegality, perversity or material error warranting interference.
Analysis :-
7. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the trial court has rightly
appreciated the material contradictions and deficiencies in the prosecution
case:-

(i) Failure to produce material evidence :-

Though the prosecution alleged that the videography of the
inspection was conducted, the same has not been produced before
the Court. P.W.-1 complainant, Dhanveer Singh Nagar, J.E.
Enforcement Team, himself admitted in his cross-examination
that he does not know who conducted the videography and where
the view was stored. The alleged video has not been produced
before the Court. Non-production of such material evidence
creates serious doubts regarding the alleged inspection.
(ii) No seizure or recovery memo of alleged materials :
It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that -
(a) No list of electrical appliances allegedly being used was
prepared.
(b) The alleged wire used for bypassing was neither seized nor
produced before the Court.
(c) When the connection was disconnected and the wire was
removed, no seizure memo was prepared, which is a serious lapse
on the part of prosecution.
(iii) Deficiencies in Inspection Report
The inspection report itself suffers from inconsistencies. The total
load is mentioned as 1973 watt, whereas P.W.- 1 Dhanveer Singh
Nagar admitted in his deposition that the correct load should have
been 1953 watt and it is also admitted that the load of 1953 watt
was less than the sanction load. Such discrepancies go to the root
of the prosecution case.
(iv) Lack of Specific evidence regarding meter and bypass:-
The prosecution witnesses failed to state :-
(a) Where exactly the meter was installed.
(b) Whether the meter was sealed and taken into custody.
(c) Whether the alleged tampering was scientifically verified.
C372 No. 615 of 2024
3

No material has been brought on record to establish that the meter
was actually bypassed.
(v) Non- preparation of seizure memo and non-compliance of
procedure :-
P.W.-1 Dhanveer Singh Nagar and P.W.-2 A.E.(Meter) Sunil
Kumar have admitted that -
(a) No seizure memo was prepared for the illegal materials.
(b) No inventory of seized items was made.
(c) No independent witness was associated.
Such lapses are fatal to the prosecution case.
(vi) Nature of evidence:-
The entire prosecution case rests on the testimony of
departmental officials, which is not corroborated by any
independent witness or documentary evidence.
In absence of reliable corroboration, the testimony does not
inspire confidence.
Legal Position
8. It is well settled in an appeal against acquittal interference by the appellate
court is warranted only when the findings of the trial court are perverse and
wholly unsustainable.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnatka,
(2007) 4 SCC 415 has held that where two views are possible, the appellate
court should not interfere with the order of acquittal.
Conclusion :-
10. In the present case, the trial court has taken a plausible and reasonable
view based on the evidence on record. No illegality, perversity or material
irregularity has been pointed out so as to warrant interference by this Court.
11. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.
February 17, 2026
P. Pandey
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…