3.1. Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents:

• Hasi Mazumdar v. The West Bengal State Electricity Board (AIR 2006 Cal 59): Highlighted procedural requirements under the Electricity Act.
• Harvinder Motors v. B.S.E.S Rajdhani Power Ltd. (AIR 2007 Del 85): Emphasized the distinction between unauthorized use and theft.
• Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (AIR 2012 SC (Civ) 489): Clarified the separate applicability of Sections 126 and 135.
• Jagmodhan Mehatabsing Gujaral v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 8 SCC 629: Addressed large-scale electricity theft and punitive measures.

These precedents collectively underscore the necessity of adhering to specific procedural frameworks when dealing with unauthorized use versus outright theft of electricity.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The core of the legal reasoning revolves around the distinct nature and procedure prescribed for Sections 126 and 135:

• Section 126: Pertains to unauthorized use of electricity, a civil wrong without an inherent element of mens rea (intent). It mandates a provisional assessment, a show-cause notice, and an opportunity for the consumer to respond before any assessment is finalized.
• Section 135: Deals explicitly with theft of electricity, a criminal offense imbued with mens rea. It allows for immediate disconnection of supply upon detection of theft, seizure of materials, and mandatory filing of a First Information Report (FIR), bypassing the provisional assessment required under Section 126.

The appellant erroneously contended that the JSEB treated the case under Section 126, thereby neglecting the procedural safeguards. However, the High Court discerned that the JSEB appropriately categorized the offense under Section 135, given the evidence suggesting theft rather than mere unauthorized use. Thus, the procedures under Section 135 took precedence, rendering the appellant's arguments under Section 126 inapplicable.

3.3. Impact

This judgment has significant implications:

• Clarification of Procedural Boundaries: Reinforces the necessity to correctly categorize offenses under the appropriate section of the Electricity Act, ensuring that violations are addressed with due process.
• Legal Precedent: Serves as a guiding reference for future cases involving electricity theft versus unauthorized use, highlighting the distinct procedural requirements.
• Regulatory Compliance: Emphasizes the importance for electricity boards and authorities to meticulously follow prescribed regulations, mitigating the risk of legal challenges based on procedural lapses.
• Consumer Awareness: Informs consumers about their rights and the specific procedures that authorities must follow when alleging theft or unauthorized use of electricity.

4.1. Section 126 vs. Section 135

Section 126: Deals with civil liabilities arising from unauthorized use of electricity. It lacks the criminal intent component and involves a provisional assessment followed by an opportunity for the consumer to respond.

Section 135: Addresses criminal offenses related to theft of electricity. It involves immediate actions like disconnection of service, seizure of equipment, and filing of an FIR, reflecting the serious nature of the offense.

4.2. Electricity Supply Code Amendment Regulations, 2010

These regulations provide detailed procedural guidelines for assessing electricity consumption in cases of alleged unauthorized use or theft. They delineate the steps authorities must follow, ensuring both the protection of consumer rights and the enforcement of penalties where necessary.

4.3. First Information Report (FIR)

An FIR is a document prepared by police agencies in India when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offense. In the context of electricity theft under Section 135, filing an FIR is mandatory for initiating criminal proceedings.