Can a High Court Uphold a Section 135-A Electricity Theft Conviction Yet Modify the Fine Based on Interim Deposit and Pendency?

The Chhattisgarh High Court affirms conviction for unauthorized electricity “hook-up” under Section 135-A of the Electricity Act, 2003, while exercising appellate and inherent powers (Section 481 BNSS 2023) to reduce the fine to the amount already deposited. Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh, this decision clarifies how fine‐modification operates in criminal appeals involving interim deposits.

Summary

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• High Courts can uphold convictions for electricity theft under Section 135-A while modifying the fine on appeal to the amount already deposited during pendency.
• Interim deposit and period spent in custody are valid considerations for sentence modification.
• The Court may invoke its inherent and appellate powers (here cited as Section 481 BNSS 2023) to direct personal bonds and alter default-stipulations in fines.
• This decision provides a binding template for subordinate courts on fine-reduction where deposit precedes final disposal.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Charge Framing & Evidence: The trial court framed charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act based on departmental FIR and spot inspection reports (Ex-P/1 to Ex-P/6).
2. Oral Testimony: PW-1 (Assistant Engineer) lodged FIR; PW-3 and PW-5 (Vigilance officers) testified to direct hooking and seizure; PW-4’s hostile stance did not affect cumulative proof.
3. Conviction Upholdment: Unauthorized consumption without meter and receipts was conclusively established, justifying conviction under Section 135-A.
4. Sentence Modification: Considering the appellant’s age, twelve days in custody pending appeal, and deposition of ₹35,000 as fine, the Court reduced the fine to ₹35,000.
5. Inherent/Appellate Powers: The High Court exercised its authority under Section 481 BNSS 2023 to direct execution of personal bond (₹25,000 for six months) anticipating special leave petitions.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellant):

• Trial court misappreciated oral and documentary evidence and ignored contradictions in prosecution witnesses.
• Conviction under Section 135-A is contrary to law.
• In the alternative, fine should be reduced to the ₹35,000 already deposited, given age (50+) and 12 days in custody.

Respondent (State):

• Trial court correctly evaluated the link between unauthorized “hook-up” and electricity theft.
• No interference warranted; judgment should be upheld.

Factual Background

In May 2006, CSEB vigilance officers detected direct hooking of electricity to the appellant’s house, where machines, a tubelight and fan ran without any meter or billing receipt. They seized wires and lodged an FIR for theft of approximately 910 units (value ₹21,129) over six months. Following investigation, the appellant was tried under Section 135-A, convicted, and fined ₹63,387 (default imprisonment ordered). The appellant appealed, citing mis-appreciation of evidence and seeking reduction of fine to the amount already deposited.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 135-A, Electricity Act 2003: Punishment for theft of electricity and unauthorized use via illegal “hook-up.”
• Section 481, BNSS 2023: Invoked by High Court to direct personal bonds and modify sentences in criminal appeals where special leave petitions may follow.

Procedural Innovations

• Use of Section 481 BNSS 2023 by High Court to impose personal bond conditions in criminal appeals.
• Recognition that appellate courts can modify fines based on interim deposits and custody pendency.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court affirms the trial court’s conviction under Section 135-A while modifying the sentence.

Citations

2025:CGHC:44668 (High Court of Chhattisgarh)