MAHAVEERversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                [2025] 10 S.C.R. 381 : 2025 INSC 1206

                               Mahaveer
                                  v.
                     State of Maharashtra and Anr.
                (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2154-2155 of 2011)
                                08 October 2025
           [Sanjay Karol* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose whether the acquittal of the appellant-director of the
       company was correctly reversed by the High Court and whether his
       conviction u/ss.39 and 44 of the Electricity Act, 1910 for committing
       theft of energy and for interference with meters or licensee’s works,
       and for improper use of energy, sustainable.

                                   Headnotes†
       Electricity Act, 1910 – ss.39 and 44 – Theft of energy – Penalty
       for interference with meters or licensee’s works, and for
       improper use of energy – Conviction of the appellant-director
       of the company for the offence punishable u/ss.39 and 44, for
       committing theft of energy and for interference with meters
       or licensee’s works, and for improper use of energy by the
       High Court, reversing the findings of acquittal recorded by
       the Magistrate – Sustainability:
       Held: Under s.39, 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 – Presumption is not of automatic application, and instead,
       something is required to be established for it to apply, thus, on
       facts, it must be established by the MSEB that an artificial means
       had been employed – None of the five witnesses deposed with
       complete confidence about the alleged theft of electricity and the
       use of artificial means therein, by the appellant – Most of the
       testimonies based on estimation, presumption, approximation or
       possibilities, which cannot be deemed to be sufficient for proving the
       theft – As a necessary follow-up of the inability of the prosecution
       to prove the use of artificial means, the presumption against the


* Author
382                                                             [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       consumer, that is, the appellant, not set in motion – Charge u/s.44
       is resting on shaky grounds as well – Nothing on record to show
       that the meter had been injured or tampered with – None of the
       investigators from the MSEB carried out a practical exercise of
       checking the holes and the wires, and the possibility of it being
       actually used for theft, as alleged to have taken place – None of
       the witnesses or any other third person saw the accused, or, for
       that matter, any other person connected to the Company, openly
       tampering with the box – No categorical statement that at the time
       of installation or any time prior to the inspection of the meter box
       by officials of the MSEB, there were no holes in the box – There
       are too many open possibilities for criminal liability to be affixed to
       any person – s.44 also has not been proved beyond a reasonable
       doubt – Thus, neither ss.39 nor 44 could be established against
       the appellant – Judgment and order passed by the High Court set
       aside. [Paras 13-17]

                                 Case Law Cited
       Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat [1996] Supp. 2 SCR
       265 : (1996) 9 SCC 225; Satya Narain Prasad v. Bhagwan Ramdas
       (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 629; Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian
       [2021] 1 SCR 668 : (2021) 5 SCC 283; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of
       Madras [1957] 1 SCR 981 : 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13 – referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Electricity Act, 1910.

                                List of Keywords
       Theft of energy; Interference with meters or licensee’s works;
       Improper use of energy; Presumption; Use of artificial means;
       Holes in the box; Criminal liability.

                                Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
       2154-2155 of 2011
       From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.2010 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLA Nos. 270 and
       346 of 1997
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                          383

                     Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.


                                   Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant:
      Sunil J. Mathews, Deepak Kore, Ms. Jyoti Rani Chib, Ms. Yashika,
      Rajeev Singh.
      Advs. for the Respondents:
      Ajit Bhasme, Sr. Adv., Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
      Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Rohan K Santoshi,
      Parth Sarathi, Prashant Sharma, Gyanendra Vikram Singh,
      Ms. Soumya Gulati.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                            Judgment

      Sanjay Karol, J.

1.    These appeals, at the instance of the appellant-convict, are directed
      against the judgment and order dated 15th October, 2010, passed
      in Criminal Appeal No.270/1997 and Criminal Revision Application
      No.346/1997, whereby a learned Single Judge of the High Court of
      Judicature at Bombay (Bench at Aurangabad) overturned the findings
      of acquittal recorded by the IIIrd Jt. Judicial Magistrate (FC) at Jalan
      in Reg. Criminal Case No.108/93 for the offence punishable under
      Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 19101.
2.    The facts as have been laid out by the Courts below are as follows:-
      2.1 The appellant-convict was a Director of M/s. Rushi Steels
          and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.2, situated at Plot No.52/7 of MIDC Area,
          Jalan and was responsible for conducting the business of the
          Company. The power supply to the Company was provided by
          the Maharashtra State Electricity Board3.
      2.2 The officials of the MSEB, in March 1993, noticed a mismatch
          between the units supplied to these factories vis-à-vis the
          readings taken from the meters at these factories. The alleged
          disparity was to the extent of 36.6 per cent. Naturally, an


1    Hereinafter referred to as “The Act”
2    Hereinafter referred to as the “Company”
3    Hereinafter referred to as “MSEB”
384                                                         [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


              investigation was followed in the months of April and May 1993.
              During inspection of the meters placed at the factory of the
              appellant-convict by senior officials of MSEB, in the presence
              of independent witnesses, it was found that the meter had
              been tampered with, and the box in which it was placed had
              3 holes of 4 mm each.
       2.3 According to the prosecution, the officials of the MSEB concluded
           that the workers of the Company had been using additional
           wires, interfering with the meter supply and thereby causing a
           slowdown in the running of the meter. As such, the holes were
           sealed. On a subsequent reading of the meter, the disparity
           was now found to be around 10 per cent.
       2.4 The approximate quantification of the alleged theft of electricity
           was to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs.
       2.5 The Executive Engineer, MSEB, lodged a First Information
           Report with the Taluka Jalan Police Station, on 25th June 1993.
           Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed
           before the Court on 1st October 1993.
3.     The prosecution examined five witnesses. Statement under
       Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure4 of the two accused,
       namely Radheshyam and Mahaveer, the present appellant-convict
       (Mahaveer), was also recorded. It may be noted here itself that the
       appeal qua Radheshyam stood dismissed as abated vide order dated
       30th September 2019. The defence did not lead any other evidence
       and furnished a whole and complete denial of the accusations levelled
       by the prosecution.
4.     The Trial Court, on consideration of the entire evidence, concluded that
       the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable
       doubt. It could not prove abstraction, dishonest use or consumption
       of electrical energy. The charges under Sections 39 and 44 of the
       Act could not be established and as such, the following order was
       passed:-
              "1.     Both the accused viz., (1) Radheshyam S/o Ratanlal
                      Agrawal, age 40 years and 2) Mahaveer S/o Ratanlal



4    Hereinafter referred to as “Cr.PC”
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                        385

               Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.


                Agrawal, age 55 years, Directors of M/s. Rushi Steel
                and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Company are hereby acquitted
                of the punishable offence under Section 39 of the
                Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
          2.    Both the accused are further acquitted of punishable
                offence U/sec. 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
          3.    Both accused are acquitted under the provisions of
                Section 248(1) of Cr. P.C.
          4.    Bail bonds of both accused stand cancelled.
          5.    Both the accused be set at liberty forthwith.
          6.    Muddemal viz., meter box in question be delivered to
                prosecution vide Exh. 122, application of prosecution
                claiming meter box in question U/sec. 452 Cr.P.C.
                subject to condition that prosecution shall execute
                a bond to restore it to the court if order made under
                Sub Section (1) of Sec. 452 Cr.P.C. is modified or
                set aside an appeal or revision.”
                                                (S.D. Agrawal)
                                      3 Jt. Judicial Magistrate
                                       rd

                                                   (F.C.) Jalna
          Date : 25.4.1997”
5.   On appeal, the High Court framed the following points for
     consideration:-
          “i) Whether the prosecution proves that the respondents
          committed theft of energy?
          ii) Whether the prosecution proves that the respondents
          interfered with the electric meter?
          iii) Whether the complaint is made by competent person
          as expected under Section 50 of the Electricity Act?
          iv) What is the scope of appreciation of evidence when
          the appeal against acquittal is filed?”
6.   On consideration of evidence, the High Court held that once the
     extra holes in the meter box were sealed, the consumption increased
     significantly, and since the possibility of any other user stealing the
386                                                          [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       electricity had been foreclosed by the holes being plugged with a metal
       plate having been placed there, it stood proved that the appellant-
       convict(s) was responsible for the theft. Regarding Section 44 of the
       Act, it was concluded that the case would fall squarely under clause
       ‘c’ of the said Section. Further, it was observed that the appellant-
       convict(s) did not make any attempt to prove that the extra holes in
       the meter box were not caused by them. Regarding the issue that
       PW-3 Dinkar, being the competent authority to lodge the complaint, it
       was held that he was given that he had been deputed by the MSEB
       as the officer responsible for that area. Accordingly, a complaint at
       his instance would be treated as a complaint made on behalf of
       MSEB, and so, it would be in accordance with the law. On the next
       point, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the Trial Court
       had not appreciated the law as laid down by this Court in Ramesh
       Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat5. Having recorded as above, the
       appeal and the revision were allowed, and the appellant-convict(s)
       was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
       year and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs each, in default whereof the
       appellant-convict(s) was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment
       for a period of 3 months.
7.     Hence, these appeals. We have heard learned counsel appearing
       for the parties.
8.     The short question to be considered is whether the acquittal of the
       appellant-convict(s) was correctly reversed by the High Court and
       whether the conviction so handed down to him is sustainable in law.
9.     The two provisions, of which infraction is alleged on the part of the
       appellant-convict(s), are reproduced below for ready reference: –
             Section 39
             [39. Theft of energy.—Whoever dishonestly abstracts,
             consumes or uses any energy shall be punishable with
             imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years,
             or with fine which shall not be less than one thousand
             rupees, or with both; and if it is proved that any artificial
             means or means not authorised by the licensee exist for
             the abstraction, consumption or use of energy by the


5    (1996) 9 SCC 225
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                            387

               Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.


          consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved,
          that any abstraction, consumption or use of energy has
          been dishonestly caused by such consumer.]

          Section 44
          44. Penalty for interference with meters or licensee’s
          works, and for improper use of energy.—Whoever—
          (a) connects any meter referred to in Section 26, sub-section
          (1), or any meter, indicator or apparatus referred to in Section
          26, sub-section (7), with any electric supply-line through
          which energy is supplied by a licensee, or disconnects the
          same from any such electric supply-line, 1 [* * *]; or
          2
           [(aa) unauthorisedly re-connects any meter referred to in
          sub-section (1) of Section 26, or any meter, indicator or
          apparatus referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 26, with
          any electric supply-line or other works, being the property
          of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied,
          when the said electric supply line or other works has or
          have been cut or disconnected under sub-section (1) of
          Section 24; or]
          (b) lays, or causes to be laid, or connects up any works
          for the purpose of communicating with any other works
          belonging to a licensee, 3 [* * *]; or
          (c) maliciously injures any meter referred to in Section
          26, sub-section (1), or any meter, indicator or apparatus
          referred to in Section 26, sub-section (7), or wilfully or
          fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator
          or apparatus, or prevents any such meter, indicator or
          apparatus from duly registering; or
          (d) improperly uses the energy of a licensee;
          shall be punishable with 4 [imprisonment for a term which
          may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend
          to five thousand rupees, or with both], and, in the case
          of continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend
          to 5 [fifty] rupees; and 6 [if it is proved that any artificial
          means exist] for making such connection as is referred to
          in clause (a), 7 [or such re-connection as is referred to in
388                                                           [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


            clause (aa),] or such communication as is referred to in
            clause (b), or for causing such alteration or prevention as
            is referred to in clause (c), or for facilitating such improper
            use as is referred to in clause (d), 8 [and that] the meter,
            indicator or apparatus is under the custody or control of
            the consumer, whether it is his property or not, 9 [it shall
            be presumed, until the contrary is proved,] that such
            connection, 10 [re-connection,] communication, alteration,
            prevention or improper use, as the case may be, has been
            knowingly and willfully caused by such consumer.
                                                    (Emphasis supplied)

10. In Satya Narain Prasad v. Bhagwan Ramdas6 it was observed
    as follows:
            “3. …It can be seen that Section 39 as such does not
            prescribe any sentence but yet it creates an offence by
            raising a fiction, namely, that whoever has dishonestly
            used or abstracted any energy shall be deemed to have
            committed the theft within the meaning of Penal Code,
            1860. Therefore, dishonest abstraction of electricity is
            deemed to be an offence under the Penal Code by virtue
            of this fiction created under Section 39 of the Electricity
            Act. Interpreting this section, this Court in Avtar Singh
            case [(1965) 1 SCR 103 : AIR 1965 SC 666] held: (SCR
            p. 107-A-B)
                   “To put it shortly, dishonest abstraction of
                   electricity mentioned in Section 39 cannot be
                   an offence under the Code for under it alone it
                   is not an offence, the dishonest abstraction is
                   by Section 39 made a theft within the meaning
                   of the Code, that is, an offence of the variety
                   described in the Code as theft. As the offence
                   is created by raising a fiction, the section which
                   raises the fiction, namely Section 39 of the Act,
                   must be said to create the offence. Since the
                   abstraction is by Section 39 to be deemed to be
                   an offence under the Code, the fiction must be


6   (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 629
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                          389

                  Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.


                   followed to the end and the offence so created
                   would entail the punishment mentioned in the
                   Code for that offence. The punishment is not
                   under the Code itself for under it abstraction of
                   energy is not an offence at all.”
            It looks as though the High Court has only referred to
            the last sentence and overlooked the fact that Section
            39 expressly made dishonest abstraction of electricity, as
            offence punishable under the Code. Section 39, therefore,
            makes something which was not a theft within the Penal
            Code, a theft within it, and consequently that section also
            makes theft punishable in the manner provided in the Code
            because the illegal abstraction of electricity is deemed
            to be a theft within the meaning of Code and it must be
            deemed for all purposes a theft including the purpose of
            imposing the punishment. Therefore, in deciding whether
            an offence of theft as provided under Section 39 is made
            out or not the Court has to read Section 39 along with
            provision of IPC dealing with theft.”
                                                   (Emphasis supplied)

11. It has to be noted that prior to proceeding with the merits of the
    case, that reversal of acquittal by the High Court in exercise of its
    appellate jurisdiction in and of itself does not call upon this Court
    to reappreciate the entire evidence when an appeal is preferred by
    special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Reference
    to Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian7 would suffice. A Bench of
    three learned Judges records the position as under:
            “11. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
            submissions, we do not find any valid ground to interfere
            with the impugned judgment [P. Balasubramanian v.
            Kalamani Tex, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 35499]. It is true
            that the High Court would not reverse an order of acquittal
            merely on formation of an opinion different than that of
            the trial court. It is also trite in law that the High Court
            ought to have compelling reasons to tinker with an order


7   (2021) 5 SCC 283
390                                                        [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          of acquittal and no such interference would be warranted
          when there were to be two possible conclusions. [C.K.
          Dasegowda v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 13 SCC 119,
          para 14 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 599] Nonetheless, there are
          numerous decisions of this Court, justifying the invocation
          of powers by the High Court under Section 378 CrPC,
          if the trial court had, inter alia, committed a patent error
          of law or grave miscarriage of justice or it arrived at a
          perverse finding of fact. [State of U.P. v. Banne, (2009) 4
          SCC 271, para 27 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 260; Ghurey Lal
          v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450, para 70 : (2009) 1
          SCC (Cri) 60]
          12. On a similar analogy, the powers of this Court under
          Article 136 of the Constitution also do not encompass the
          reappreciation of entirety of record merely on the premise
          that the High Court has convicted the appellants for the first
          time in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. This Court in
          Ram Jag v. State of U.P. [Ram Jag v. State of U.P., (1974)
          4 SCC 201, para 14 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 370] , Rohtas v.
          State of Haryana [Rohtas v. State of Haryana, (2019) 10
          SCC 554, para 12 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 47] and Raveen
          Kumar v. State of H.P. [Raveen Kumar v. State of H.P.,
          (2021) 12 SCC 557 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 869, para
          14] , evolved its own limitations on the exercise of powers
          under Article 136 of the Constitution and has reiterated
          that while entertaining an appeal by way of special leave,
          there shall not ordinarily be an attempt to reappreciate the
          evidence on record unless the decision(s) under challenge
          are shown to have committed a manifest error of law or
          procedure or the conclusion reached is ex facie perverse.”
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

12. By way of an appeal, it is urged before us that the High Court has
    committed a manifest error in overturning the findings of acquittal
    entered by the Trial Court. A perusal of the record convinces us
    that there may be some strength to this submission. As such, while
    being conscious of the self-imposed limitations qua reappreciation
    of evidence by this Court under the extant jurisdiction, we tread
    further.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                        391

               Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.


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.
14. As we have already noted supra, the State examined five witnesses
    to establish its case. Let us now examine how these five witnesses
    are able to establish that artificial means had been employed in the
    theft of electricity.
     14.1 PW -1 was one Shankarrao, who was a witness to the
          panchnama. He states that he was called there and shown a
          meter box. He made a positive statement that he signed the
          said document. When cross-examined, he stated that when
          he signed the document, he had no knowledge of what had
          taken place there, nor was the document written as per his
          understanding. It was written independently, and he had only
          affixed his signature on it. The meter he was shown was not
          working. He was also shown some wires affixed to a wooden
          board. It is admitted that he, having noticed whatever he was
          shown, deduced, without confirmation, that there had been a
          theft of electricity.
     14.2 PW-2 was Balwant, Dy. Ex. Engineer, MSEB, Officer, Jalna. In
          his detailed examination in chief, this witness detailed the entire
          process of the cloud of suspicion being cast on the company
          of the appellant-convict, as also the step-by-step actions taken
          in regard of such suspicion. In his cross-examination, it comes
          for that he had not checked the consumption of electricity by
          the other companies. It was further stated:-
392                                                             [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                   “…It is true to suggest that all the statement made
                   by me by deposite and regarding less recording
                   of energy are based on guesswork and nothing
                   specific. It is true to nothing specific with regard
                   record with less electricity can be stated by me.…
                   I do not know as to whether previously there
                   were separate whole at the bottom of the metre is
                   question…. It is to do to suggest that I have been
                   pressurised by superior in deposed before the
                   Hon’ble Court”
       14.3 PW-3 was the complainant. He testified that during the
            inspection of the meter box, 3 holes were found. After plugging
            the holes, it was stated that the discrepancy fell to 10 percent.
            The numbers mentioned in the report, according to him, were
            correct, and he has signed the same. In his cross-examination,
            he admits that none of the officers of the MSEB verified the
            possibility of –
                   “shortening the current by insulting wires in the holes
                   of the bottom of metre box. It is true to say that, all the
                   conclusions reached by us in the alleged occurrence
                   about theft of electricity in respect of metre box in
                   question entirely based upon the inference only.”
       14.4 PW-4 testified that he had come to Jalan for the purpose of
            conducting tests on the meters. At the time of testing, the
            original seal of the meter box was found to be intact. He further
            said that there was a direct correlation between the plugging of
            the holes in the meter box and the number of discrepancies,
            which were reduced significantly. In his cross-examination, it
            comes forward that he had, on the basis of what he saw during
            the inspection drew an inference that the energy consumed
            was not in a proper manner because “there was possibility due
            to existing the three holes in question.” The further relevant
            portion is reproduced as under:
                   “I had given in my report send to S. E. the fact that, I
                   suspected have gone behalf of accused company. It
                   is true to suggest that, I have adopted the procedure
                   of elimination in between the 4 consumers after
                   making observations of all for consumers and gave
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                           393

                 Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.


                    my conclusion that, the losses are due to 3 holes
                    of metre box in question.”
     14.5 PW- 5 is a retired Chief Engineer, who at the relevant point
          in time, was the Superintending Engineer, Aurangabad Circle.
          He is the one who gave directions to the concerned officials
          to commence the investigation. He details in his testimony,
          the receipt of information of the discrepancy to the extent of
          36.6% and the steps he took thereafter, including discussing
          with higher officials. In his cross-examination, he admits as
          follows:
                    “it is true to suggest that, the existence of 3 holes
                    at the bottom of the metre box of the accused is be
                    only because for charging the accused for pilferage
                    of energy.”
15. It is evident from the above discussion and extracts of the testimonies
    put forward by the prosecution that none of them have deposed with
    complete confidence about the alleged theft of electricity and the
    use of artificial means therein, by the appellant-convict. Most of the
    testimonies are based on estimation, presumption, approximation or
    possibilities. Needless to state, the same cannot be deemed to be
    sufficient for the purposes of proving the above. Reference may be
    made to Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras8, wherein this Court
    has explained the nature of witness testimony and its corresponding
    effect on the overall case. The second of the three mentioned therein
    is ‘wholly unreliable.’ The testimonies that make up this case appear
    to fall squarely into this categorization. As a necessary follow-up of
    the inability of the prosecution to prove the use of artificial means,
    the presumption against the consumer, that is, the appellant-convict,
    is not set in motion.
16. Insofar as the charge under Section 44 is concerned, we find that to
    be resting on shaky grounds as well. Nothing has been brought on
    record to show that the meter had been injured or tampered with.
    None of the investigators from the MSEB carried out a practical
    exercise of checking the holes and the wires, and the possibility of
    it being actually used for theft, as is alleged to have taken place.


8   1957 SCC OnLine SC 13
394                                                         [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


       None of the witnesses or any other third person saw the accused,
       or, for that matter, any other person connected to the Company,
       openly tampering with the box. There was no categorical statement
       whatsoever that at the time of installation or any time prior to the
       inspection of the meter box by officials of the MSEB, there were no
       holes in the box. In other words, there are too many open possibilities
       for criminal liability to be affixed to any person. In our considered
       view, therefore, Section 44 of the Act also has not been proved
       beyond a reasonable doubt.
17. Consequent to the above discussion, we hold that neither Sections 39
    nor Section 44 could be established against the appellant-convict.
    As such, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated
    15th October 2010, passed in Criminal Appeal No.270 of 1997 and
    Criminal Revision Application No. 346 of 1997, passed by the High
    Court of Punjab and Haryana, is set aside. Mahaveer, the instant
    Appellant, is acquitted of all charges. The bail bonds are discharged.
       Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain