Re-examining Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003: Substantive Scope, Procedural Nuances, and Emerging Jurisprudence

Re-examining Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003: Substantive Scope, Procedural Nuances, and Emerging Jurisprudence

1. Introduction

Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter “the Act”) embodies the offence of theft of electricity. Twenty years after the statute’s enactment, Indian courts continue to refine the contours of this provision, balancing the sector’s need for deterrence with constitutional imperatives of due process. Recent High Court decisions—including Shri Moulappa v. State of Karnataka[4] and Rameshwar Kanwar Singh v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.[5]—illustrate the practical difficulties of investigation and prosecution, while the Supreme Court’s wider pronouncements in Southco v. Seetaram Rice Mill[2] and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad[3] clarify the section’s systemic relationship with assessment proceedings and consumer protection law. Against this backdrop, the present article critically analyses Section 135’s substantive ingredients, evidentiary presumptions, procedural safeguards, and jurisdictional ramifications.

2. Statutory Framework of Section 135

2.1 Elements of the Offence

Sub-section (1) criminalises, inter alia, dishonest tapping of lines, meter tampering, and destructive acts aimed at abstracting or consuming electricity[1]. Punishment extends to three years’ imprisonment and fine, graduated by load and recidivism. The 2007 Amendment inserted a stringent proviso prescribing mandatory minimum sentences where the load exceeds 10 kW, signalling legislative emphasis on deterrence.

2.2 Presumptions and Burden of Proof

The third proviso to Section 135(1) introduces a rebuttable presumption of dishonest abstraction against the consumer where artificial devices or means for theft are found. Rameshwar Kanwar Singh[5] underscores that this presumption does not dispense with mens rea; rather, it shifts the evidentiary burden onto the accused to prove absence of knowledge or connivance.

2.3 Investigative & Procedural Safeguards

Sub-section (2) mandates prompt lodging of a written complaint within 24 hours where disconnection is effected. In Shri Moulappa, the Karnataka High Court set aside a conviction for non-compliance with Section 135(2)(b), holding that statutory procedure “goes to the root of jurisdiction” and its breach vitiates the trial[4].

3. Section 135 vis-à-vis Section 126: Doctrinal Distinction

The Supreme Court in Southco v. Seetaram Rice Mill drew a bright-line distinction between “unauthorised use” under Section 126 and “theft” under Section 135[2]. Section 126 is essentially a civil/administrative mechanism for revenue protection, whereas Section 135 is a full-fledged penal provision. The Court cautioned that investigative agencies must choose the correct track because the two procedures are “mutually exclusive” yet complementary to the Act’s overall scheme.

4. Procedural Challenges in Prosecutions under Section 135

4.1 Quality of Evidence & Independent Witnesses

In Shri Moulappa, the prosecution failed partly because an independent panch witness turned hostile, and the Inspecting Officer relied on photographs without seizure-list corroboration[4]. The decision signals judicial insistence on robust primary evidence notwithstanding statutory presumptions.

4.2 Meter Tampering and “Seal-Breaking” Cases

The Jharkhand High Court’s ruling in Rina-N Vedagiri treated mere seal-breakage, absent consumption-pattern corroboration, as insufficient for conviction[8]. The Court relied on the State Supply Code framed under Section 181, illustrating the interplay between central legislation and delegated regulations.

4.3 Vicarious Liability of Owners and Landlords

The Delhi High Court in Rameshwar Kanwar Singh held that registered consumers can be put to trial despite tenant’s actual use, because the statutory presumption extends to persons “benefited” or “in control” of supply. Whether such liability matures into conviction depends on rebuttal evidence during trial[5].

5. Jurisdictional Matrix: Special Courts, Consumer Fora, and Civil Courts

5.1 Special Courts under Section 153

All offences under Section 135 are triable exclusively by Special Courts constituted under Section 153. Where prosecutions were launched before ordinary Magistrates, High Courts have routinely transferred proceedings, emphasising legislative intent for speedy and technical adjudication (see, Mahesh v. State of U.P.[10]).

5.2 Bar of Civil Jurisdiction and Consumer Fora

The Supreme Court in Anis Ahmad authoritatively held that complaints challenging assessments or theft allegations cannot be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because such disputes neither allege “deficiency in service” nor fall within the civil consumer paradigm[3]. Subsequent rulings of the National and State Commissions have dutifully followed suit[17].

5.3 Writ Jurisdiction

While High Courts retain supervisory powers under Article 226, intervention is circumscribed. In Navghanbhai Zala v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. the Gujarat High Court refused to quash a supplementary bill under Section 135, emphasising exhaustion of statutory remedies[19].

6. Compounding and Civil Liability

Section 152 permits compounding on payment of a prescribed sum, resulting in discharge from prosecution. However, compounding does not negate civil liability under Section 154(5), which mandates determination of loss at twice the tariff rate for the preceding twelve months. Special Courts thus function in a dual capacity—criminal adjudication and civil quantification—reinforcing the Act’s revenue-centric objectives.

7. Policy and Regulatory Considerations

  • Smart-metering and digital forensics: The inefficacy of manual inspection, highlighted in Sangita v. State of M.P.[6], underscores the need for advanced forensic protocols.
  • Licensing Environment: The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Jindal Steel reaffirms rigorous licensing under Sections 12–19[13], indirectly buttressing enforcement against unlicensed distribution covered by Section 135(1)(e).
  • Rationalisation of Tariff and Penalties: Multiple State amendments seek higher penalties, yet constitutional proportionality must be preserved.

8. Conclusion

Section 135 remains a cornerstone of India’s electricity governance, deterring theft while protecting legitimate consumers. Jurisprudence demonstrates an emerging equilibrium: courts insist on rigorous procedural adherence but uphold statutory presumptions to preserve deterrence. Future reforms should focus on (i) integrating technology-driven evidence gathering, (ii) harmonising State-level enforcement codes, and (iii) enhancing awareness to reduce litigation. Ultimately, the effectiveness of Section 135 hinges on diligent investigation, specialised adjudication, and a nuanced appreciation of the statute’s civil-criminal duality.

Footnotes

  1. Electricity Act, 2003, s. 135.
  2. Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. (SOUTHCO) v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108.
  3. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad, (2013) 8 SCC 491.
  4. Shri Moulappa v. State of Karnataka, Karnataka HC Crl.A. No. 12/2008, decided 2018.
  5. Rameshwar Kanwar Singh v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7579.
  6. Sangita v. State of M.P., 2008 SCC OnLine MP (Extract).
  7. Chinnammal v. Assistant Executive Engineer, Madras HC, 2014.
  8. Rina-N Vedagiri v. State of Jharkhand, Jharkhand HC 2012.
  9. Deputy Engineer (O&M) v. Ramesh Kishanchand Samiyani, Gujarat HC 2011.
  10. Mahesh v. State of U.P., Allahabad HC 2024.
  11. Electricity Act, 2003, s. 126.
  12. Electricity Act, 2003, ss. 150-154.
  13. M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2022) SCC OnLine SC (Extract).
  14. T.S.T. Kaznavi v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras HC 2008.