Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. … on 22 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:48996
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 410 of 2026
Sandeep Kumar Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Shashank Shukla, Prachi Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Neera Yadav
Reserved on 19.05.2026 Delivered on 22.07.2026Court No. - 31
HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the UPPCL/ MVVNL.
2. By means of instant criminal revision, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Room No.4/ Special Judge (E.C. Act), District Gonda in Case Crime No.1161 of 2022, under Sections 135(C) Indian Electricity Act, Police Station Anti Power Theft, District Gonda in Sessions Trial No.1117 of 2025 “State versus Sandeep Singh”.
3. The facts, in brief, relevant for present revision are that informant, Rajkumar, Junior Engineer, Enforcement Wing, was engaged in tracking power theft along with Vinod Kumar Yadav, In-charge Sub-Inspector, Enforcement Wing, Gonda and some other police officials attached with Enforcement Wing on 07.12.2022. The Enforcement Team conducted an inspection and check of a mobile tower installed in the campus of accused-revisionist, Sandeep Kumar Singh and it was found that from changer installed in tower compound, service cable coming from L-T side was cut near and prior to the meter and outgoing was illegally attached prior to the meter and by means of bypassing the meter and by joining main board and wiring of tower, electricity was being used illegally, which resulted in power theft. This inspection was done on 07.12.2022 at 14:40 hours in presence of revisionist, Sandeep Singh, resident of Chauri Chauraha, P.S. Colonelganj, permanent address Village- Gogiya, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Gonda. The act of the accused was found punishable under Section 135(1)(c) Electricity Act, 2003/ 2007. The accused was informed about provisions of compounding fee and Junior Engineer was asked to disconnect the cable illegally connected for power theft by calling line stop. A photography was also done on the spot. The case was registered at P.S. Anti-Power Theft, Gonda on 08.12.2022 at 10:00 A.M. A police inspector of P.S. Anti-Power Theft, Gonda conducted investigation of the case and submitted charge sheet against the applicant, wherein it is stated that complicity of the applicant-accused was found on the basis of evidence collected during investigation. The compounding fee payable by the accused is Rs. 8,17,474/-. It is also stated in the charge sheet that in despite giving sufficient time, the accused could not deposit the compounding fee. Thus, the charge sheet is being filed before the court for prosecution of the accused.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist/ applicant-accused submitted that the applicant had filed a discharge application before learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, E.C. Act in which it is stated that the applicant is neither proprietor of mobile tower, nor is consumer of electric power supplied to the tower. It is also not stated that the tower was installed for what purpose. Who is owner of the tower? Even it is not stated during investigation on whose land the tower is installed. In fact, he had come on call of tower and the operator to detect and rectify the technical snag occurred in the battery of tower. In the meanwhile, officers of the Power Corporation reached there and conducted check and falsely implicated him in the case. The operation, supervision and maintenance of tower is vested in tower company. The informant and officials of Power Corporation deliberately let off the Managing Director and senior officers of concerned tower company, Vodafone and to conceal their own misdeeds, a false charge sheet has been filed against the applicant. He is liable to be discharged from the said charge under Section 135(1)(c) Indian Electricity Act. The discharge application filed by the applicant has been wrongly dismissed by learned trial court without considering the grounds taken therein, in right perspective.
5. He next submitted that no independent witness was enjoined in alleged inspection and check of the tower. In inspection record, it is wrongly stated that the applicant is the consumer of electric power. There is not a whisper of evidence that he is consumer of electricity supplied to the tower. Learned trial court has also passed summoning order on the basis of charge sheet in mechanical manner without disclosing any cogent reason. After issuance of summoning order, the applicant approached this Court and he was released on bail. The revisionist is neither beneficiary nor owner of the tower, he is only a tower technician, who attended a call of officers of tower company to rectify the fault occurred in battery installed in the tower. The revisionist was not served any notice of disconnection by officers of Electricity Department. As a matter of fact, a notice dated 10.12.2022 was issued by Electricity Department of electric bill cum disconnection against M/s Indus Tower Limited, the operating company of mobile tower.
6. Section 149(1) and (2) of the Act provides that-
(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 officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of having committed such offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
7. The revisionist is neither part of the company not holds any post therein. He is merely a technical staff who is not concerned with the affairs of the company and is not liable for electricity theft. He is ready to pay the compounding charges which is mentioned in Section 152 of the Electricity Act and therefore, the revision is liable to be allowed.
8. The revisionist has also filed electricity bill come disconnection notice in respect of the tower concerned by MVVNL, Gonda Division Colonelganj in which consumer’s name is shown as M/s Indus Tower Limited and its address is given as Chauri Haldhar Mau, Gonda. In this bill total payment amount with ASD amount is shown as Rs. 60,448.56/-. In another notice, electricity bill come disconnection notice, total amount payable with ASD amount is shown as Rs. 97,394.07/-.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (MVVNL), Lucknow submitted that the revisionist was caught on the spot while tampering with the wiring installed for usual flow of electricity in tower system and obstructed display of actual consumption of electricity in the meter and he is the person who was found to have interfering with the power supply system in the tower for extending illegal gain to operators and proprietors of the mobile tower by committing electric power theft.
10. The Electricity Act, 2003 was enforced on 10.06.2003 but certain sections were not enforced at that time. However, Section 135 which is applicable in present case was enforced on 10..06.2003.
11. Section 2(23), the word “electricity” is defined as electrical energy?
(a) generated, transmitted, supplied or treated, traded for any purpose; or
(b) used for any purpose except the transmission of a message;
12. Section 135(1) Electricity Act, 2003 as amended by Amendment Act, 2007 w.e.f. 15.06.2007 provides punishment for theft of electricity, which is reproduced as under:- Whoever, dishonestly-
“(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised,
so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both:”
13. Unauthorized use of electricity is also covered under the term theft of electricity. Section 138 of the Act provides punishment for interference with meters or works of licensee.
14. Section 151 to 151(B) provides as under:-
“151. Cognizance of offences.?
No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorised by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose:
Provided that the court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):
Provided further that a special court constituted under section 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.
151A. Power of police to investigate.?
For the purposes of investigation of an offence punishable under this Act, the police officer shall have all the powers as provided in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
51B. Certain offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.?
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence punishable under sections 135 to 140 or section 150 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.”
15. Section 152 provides for compounding of offences by Appropriate Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf may accept from any consumer or person who committed or who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence of theft of electricity punishable under this Act.
16. Section 153 provides for constitution of special courts for the purposes providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 by notification in the Official Gazette for prescribed area and every such offence shall be triable only by the special court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. The special court may try the offence referred to in Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 in a summary way in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the service and the provisions of Sections 263 to 265 of the said Code shall, so far as may be, apply to such trial. It is also provided under Section 154 that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for a special court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Special court will have powers of court of Session.
17. In present case not only FIR has been lodged in a callous manner, wherein even it is not stated that which nature of tower is involved in the case, where it is situated, by which company it is operated, who are the persons responsible for affairs of the company and only the applicant has been named in the FIR but even in investigation no relevant particulars are unfolded. In investigation, it is also not revealed that whether the Directors and high officials of the company were in connivance with the revisionist in alleged offence of tampering with electric supply system provided for operation of the tower. It is clear stand of the applicant that he is not consumer of the electricity and electricity bill produced by him revealed that M/s Indus Tower Ltd. company is the real consumer of power. However, Section 135 of the Act makes a person liable for punishment who dishonestly taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or uses electricity through a tampered meter or damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire etc. so as to extract or consume or use electricity.
18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, placing reliance on a earlier judgment of the Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, [1978] I SCR 257, held that at the stage of Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold, the nature of the evidence recorded by the police, or the documents produced before the court, which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.
“Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not.”
19. In present case, although the accused-revisionist had admitted that he is tower technician but not consumer as he is not an officer of the tower company Vodafone, yet, he is the person who was allegedly found engaged in tampering with electricity supply system installed in the tower and was caught on the spot. Thus, I find no good ground to interfere in impugned order passed by learned Special Judge, whereby discharge application filed by the revisionist has been dismissed. There is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in impugned order passed by learned trial court.
20. However, in view of the provisions of Section 152 which provides for compounding of offences, it is open to the revisionist to go for compounding and move a representation before the competent officer in this regard and if the offence is duly compounded by competent officer, a copy of the said order will be produced before the trial court and in that case, it will be lawful for the trial court to close the proceedings of the case in view of the compounding of the offence, even during trial of the case.
21. The revision is dismissed with subject to aforesaid observation.
(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)
July 22, 2026
Mohd. Sharif
