Gujarat High Court
Chaudhary Shankerbhai Kesharbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 2 December, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1406 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
========================================================
CHAUDHARY SHANKERBHAI KESHARBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
========================================================
Appearance:
MR. YOGENDRA Thakore(3975) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ROHAN H. RAWAL APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 02/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant is the accused of the proceedings, conducted before the learned Special Judge, Mehsana in Special Electricity Case No.54 of 2007 under Section 135(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The conviction order was passed on 24.03.2008 sentencing the appellant-accused for nine months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.30,429/- with a default stipulation that in Page 1 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined failure to pay, further seven months rigorous imprisonment has to be undergone. Benefit of set off was granted under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). The endorsement of the Nazir on the judgment shows that the accused had deposited the fine amount of Rs.30,429/- on the very same day of the judgment.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction, the appellant is before this Court under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana is contrary to the provisions of law and against the evidence on record. It is contended in the grounds inter alia that the order of conviction and sentence is against the weight of evidence on record. The prosecution had not examined any independent witness, though available. The Officers of UGVCL are the prosecution witnesses, who cannot be considered as independent and Page 2 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined their evidence would create doubt on their own proceedings. One of the ground raised is that the signature, which has been shown in the investigation report Exh.9 was subsequently taken. The Trial Court has erred in putting implicit reliance on the prosecution evidence while holding the appellant guilty of offence alleged to have been committed.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the appellant-accused, referring to the provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, submitted that the case against the present appellant-accused was totally bad in law. Advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that the prosecution was required to prove that the accused was the customer of UGVCL or was the occupier of the premises, where the meter of UGVCL in the name of customer was installed and the use of the electricity was by the accused as an occupier of the house.
Page 3 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that the witness of UGVCL had failed to prove the ownership of the house and even failed to prove the allegation of tampering with the meter or using loop connections or other devices or methods to interfere with the flow of the electric current, thereby stealing the electricity.
3.2 Referring to the depositions of the witnesses, Advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that it was a bulk raid conducted in the area of village Sangthada, Kheralu Taluka and the Officers of the UGVCL had to show their work and therefore, without any proper verification, the complaint had been lodged. The inspection report records the name of consumer as Choudhary Kesharbhai Dalabhai, while signature of the present appellant-accused was taken on the inspection report. Advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that it was the duty of the UGVCL Officer to have inquired about the consumer himself, but had Page 4 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined failed to do so. Advocate Mr. Thakore stated that the inspection report rather states that the theft is by the customer, while the record clearly proves that the present appellant- accused is not the customer of the electricity connection, which had been provided. 3.3 Further referring to the inspection report, Advocate Mr. Thakore stated that the appliances which were used in the house had been noted and the bill of Rs.10,141/- was issued to the present appellant-accused, but the prosecution witness had failed to even find out the ownership of the appliances, which were noted in the inspection report as well as ownership of the house.
3.4 Advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that Exh.10, the notice dated 19.07.2006, was after the raid on 18.07.2006. The notice was given in the name of the customer with the customer number. Notice at Exh.10 was issued to Choudhary Kesharbhai Dalabhai, who was the father of the appellant- Page 5 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined accused. The said notice at Exh.10 states that the incident of electricity theft had occurred earlier too and the present incident dated 18.07.2006 was second of its kind and therefore, the notice was given for compounding the offence on payment of Rs.10,143/-, which was shown as a supplementary bill. Advocate Mr. Thakore, thus, submitted that the prosecution witness had given the notice to the customer and not to the occupier, who is alleged to be the present appellant - the son. Advocate Mr. Thakore, thus, stated that the evidence has come on record by way of the Investigating Officer that Kesharbhai Dalabhai had died on 30.04.1984. The document at Exh.17 is the death certificate produced by the police. In view of the fact, Advocate Mr. Thakore, thus, submitted that the notice Exh.10 dated 19.07.2006 is to a dead person. The UGVCL Officer had failed to even verify about its customer. The prior incident of electricity theft has been recorded. If that had been so and the payment was made for reconnection, UGVCL Page 6 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined would have certainly found out that the customer himself has not prayed for reconnection and should have asked the appellant-accused about the evidence of ownership of the house for change in the customer's name.
3.5 Advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the present appellant-accused even as an occupier of the house and the evidence has not been produced to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the electricity theft was by the present appellant- accused as an occupier of the place.
4. Countering the arguments vehemently, learned APP Mr. Rohankumar H. Rawal submitted that it cannot now lie in the mouth of the appellant-accused to dispute the ownership of the house when he himself had admitted the Panchnama Exh.19 as well as the Panchayat Tax Receipt Exh.20 in the name of the accused as well as the depute order Exh.18 of the police. Learned APP Mr. Rawal submitted that the notice Exh.10 was issued for Page 7 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined giving the opportunity to the present appellant- accused to compound the offence by paying the money. That itself was an opportunity for the accused to even disclose before the UGVCL Officer about the ownership of the house and for change in customer's name. Learned APP Mr. Rawal submitted that the conduct of the accused before the officer was as of the owner of the premises, where the raid was conducted the signature on the inspection report fortifies that fact and that the admission of the signature on inspection report is sufficient for accepting the case of electricity theft.
4.1 The charge was framed below Exh.5 in Special Electricity Case No.54 of 2007 against the present appellant-accused with the facts that on 18.07.2006, the UGVCL Officers had done the checking at Village Sangthada, Taluka Kheralu at the house of the appellant-accused, and it was found that, at a little distance from the meter, the service wire was sharpened and the Page 8 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined additional link wire was joined directly in the fuse without top. Therefore, no reading was recorded by the meter for the electricity consumption. Therefore, the accused was found guilty of offence under Section 131(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The charge also noted that earlier on 31.05.2005, the appellant- accused was also found guilty of electricity theft and a bill was issued to him, and that it was a second offence of theft.
5. PW-4 Maheshbhai Narsinhbhai Solanki was a head-
constable at Sabarmati Police Station. He was given the investigation by the depute order. He had recorded the statement of Bahmaniya and Prajapati and had drawn the Panchnama. He had received the Panchayat Certificate which he proposed to produce at Mark 7/8, and the Panchnama at Mark 7/6. The witness PW-4 stated that during his investigation, it was found that there was electricity theft through the meter and the original owner of the meter was Page 9 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Kesharbhai Dalabhai. The death certificate of Kesharbhai Dalabhai was produced at Exh.17 and according to Investigating Officer, the meter was used by his son - Shankarbhai Kesharbhai Chaudhary, who is the present appellant-accused. Therefore, he arrested the accused and charge- sheet was filed. In the cross-examination, the Investigating Officer stated that he had no information about the sons and daughters of deceased Kesharbhai. There were many neighbouring houses at the place of the raid and the Muddamal meter and wire were not seized. He himself has not investigated at the place regarding electricity theft.
5.1 The death certificate shows that Kesharbhai had died on 30.04.1984. The Panchnama which was admitted by the accused at Exh.19 was drawn by the police on 03.09.2006 in presence of panchas which was shown to be the house of Shankarbhai Kesharbhai Choudhary. The adjacent places were recorded. On the eastern side, there was an open road, on the western side was Panchal Vas, on Page 10 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the northern side was the house of Choudhary Dayiben Dalsanbhai, while the southern side adjoining the compound was the house of Govindbhai Abhirajbhai. On examining the house, they found the electricity connection was in force and was noted that it was reconnected by GEB, Kheralu. The Panchnama notes that nothing was collected from that place.
5.2 Panchnama Exh.19 does not record the Panchayat house number. It had not happened that the accused himself had shown the house. The complainant Rajeshbhai Gopalsingh Bahmaniya showed the place as the house of accused. The document Exh.20 which has been relied upon by the I.O. is the tax receipt issued by the Talati of Sangthada Gram Panchayat. The house number is A/30. The receipt date is 11.03.2006 for the year 2005-06. In absence of Pedhinama and verification of the heirs of the deceased Kesharbhai, the occupier of the place of the house of Kesharbhai could not be considered to Page 11 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined have been proved.
5.3 The UGVCL Officer was required to ask for the documentary evidence from the occupier himself to show the ownership of the house. They are entitled to ask for such documents, if it becomes relevant in their opinion for the proceeding. Such authority is given under sub- section (2) of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The vital aspect which becomes relevant is that the charge framed recorded of the earlier theft which was dated 31.05.2005. The notice which was issued at Exh.10 has not named the present appellant-accused. Rather, it was in the name of the deceased father - Choudhary Kesharbhai Dalabhai and the notice describes the theft of electricity by the consumer who was Choudhary Kesharbhai Dalabhai. The consumer number with the electricity connection for residential use has been recorded, though earlier the electricity theft was found, the UGVCL Officer had not verified the ownership of the house for reconnection of Page 12 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the electricity supply. On deposit of the money, the supply line of electricity has to be restored within a period of 48 hours. It was also required to be proved by the officer- prosecution witness as to who had made the payment of the supplementary bill, earlier in connection with the incident of 31.05.2005. 5.4 The inspection report Exh.9 bears the signature of the accused, who in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has stated that the signature on the inspection report was taken by the officer later on. Exh.9 shows the endorsement that when the meter was checked upon the place, they found the manipulation in the service line as referred hereinabove and therefore, has noted that the meter was not recording the usage. There was a meter by-pass. The endorsement specifies as such that the customer has committed the theft of electricity and it was a case of electricity theft. The name of the customer at Exh.9 was Choudhary Kesharbhai Dalabhai. The appliances which were Page 13 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined shown to be put to use were one TV, one fridge, one grinding machine, four fans, two lamps and two tubes.
6. The evidence of PW-1 - Rajeshkumar Gopalsingh Bahmaniya refers to the checking on 18.07.2006. The customer no. 22618/00124/9 and the name of the customer is shown as Choudhary Kesharbhai of Sangthada village. It was recorded that the service line which was joined with the meter was sharpened and an additional link wire was used and from the outgoing link wire from the meter, additional link wire was joined to the fuse without top and from that outgoing connection, the electricity was used, though the meter was stagnant and such tampering showed the case of electricity theft. During the checking, they found the theft of load of 1566 kilowatts, the signature of the present appellant-accused - Shankar Kesharbhai Chaudhary was received on the checking sheet. The bill for electricity theft was assessed as Rs.10,141/- and that was sent to the accused with a communication forwarded by Page 14 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Registered Post A.D. Thereafter, the power supply was stopped and service wire and the meter were seized.
6.1 The witness has stated of giving the police complaint. The complaint was shown as mark-A which has been led in evidence at Exh.15. The complaint is dated 21.07.2006. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in the second proviso to sub-section (1A) makes it mandatory for the officer of the licensee or the supplier to lodge the complaint in relation to the commission of such offence in the police station, having jurisdiction within a period of 24 hours from the time of such disconnection. From the evidence of PW-1, it appears that there was a disconnection of supply of electricity immediately after the raid. The officer has not clarified the exact time of disconnection of the electricity supply, however, considering the evidence of PW-1, the complaint was required to be filed on 19.07.2006, which came to be Page 15 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined registered on 21.07.2006. The delay itself becomes fatal. The mandatory provision directing the officers to file the complaint immediately within 24 hours is to avoid any scope of infraction or misdemeanor from any of the side. The third proviso to sub-section (1A) further clarifies that on deposit of the assessed amount for the electricity charges in accordance with the provision of the Act, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred in the second proviso, the licensee or the supplier would restore the supply line of electricity within 48 hours of such deposit of payment. In the present matter, the charge framed shows that earlier on 31.05.2005, there was a case of electricity theft. The father had died on 30.04.1984. The money as assessed would have been recovered from the present appellant- accused. What had happened of that earlier case of theft has not come on record, whether any complaint was lodged against the accused as an occupier of the place has not proved, no efforts Page 16 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined have been made from the side of the UGVCL to change the name of the customer. PW-1 further states that the signature of the son of the customer was taken on the inspection sheet and the bill for the theft was given to the accused with a notice.
6.2 According to the officer, the Muddamal which was seized was returned back by the police to them by receipt at Exh.12. The document Exh.12 is produced by Head Constable, GEB Police Station, Sabarmati, which is to the Deputy Engineer, Kheralu Sub-Division, with the subject for safe possession of the Muddamal, instructing the Kheralu Sub-Division to produce the Muddamal as and when called for by the Court. From the place of incident, wire and meter were seized. No such wire and meter was produced by PW-1. Witness stated that no complaint was filed for the earlier electricity theft. The appellant-accused had paid the money of the theft. In the cross- examination, PW-1 states that no compound charge Page 17 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined was taken for the earlier case of theft. When they had conducted the raid, there were many people from the public. No signature has been received of any person from the public. He affirmed that the Muddamal which was seized was not sealed and the meter was not sent for laboratory examination.
6.3 The evidence, thus, would prove that the complaint has not been filed within 24 hours. Though the earlier theft of 31.05.2005 was found of the electricity, no complaint was filed against the appellant-accused. The money was though stated to have been deposited by the accused, the compound charge was not received. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 refers to the provision of first conviction, second and subsequent conviction. The relevant provision of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is abstracted hereinbelow:
"Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or Page 18 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined attempted consumption or attempted use-
(I) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction of the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity;
(II) exceeds 10 kilowat, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity:
Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity of electricity for that period from any other source or generating Page 19 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined station:"
6.4 On first conviction, the fine imposed shall not be less than three times of financial gain on account of such theft of electricity, if in a case, where the load abstracted, consumed or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use does not exceed 10 kilowatts. In the event of second or subsequent conviction, the fine imposed shall not be less than six times of financial gain on account of such theft of electricity. Here, the complaint shows that there was a total electricity theft of 1566 kilowatts, which as provided in Clause
(ii), the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times of financial gains. On account of such theft of electricity and in event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months but which may extend to five years and with a fine not less than six times of financial gain on account of such theft of electricity.
Page 20 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
7. The prosecution witness no.1 was required to prove the fact of the earlier electricity theft. In what way the offence was compounded would become a relevant aspect in wake of the penal provision. The electricity bill at Exh.11 shows the consumer as deceased Chaudhary Kesharbhai Dalabhai. PW-2 - Kaushikbhai Joitaram Prajapati was the Junior Engineer, who has also referred to the incident dated 18.07.2006. He clarifies that they had gone to the house of Choudhary Shankarbhai Kesharbhai. If that had been so, the officer was required to ask for the necessary documents regarding the ownership or occupation of the house, since the relevant evidence as the customer of the meter was Choudhary Kesharbhai Dalabhai, which witness has admitted in his own evidence. PW-2 also states that the signature of the accused was taken on the checking sheet. The meter customer number is recorded as 22618/00124/9 which makes it clear that both the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were aware of the fact that the electricity meter was not running in Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined the name of the accused.
7.1 PW-3, Shantilal Bhodanath Nayi, the P.S.O of Sabarmati Police Station states that on 08.08.2006, he received a complaint through post and he had registered it and deputed it for investigation to In-charge Head Constable Maheshbhai Solanki - PW-4. The complaint was admitted in evidence at Exh.15. This fact also makes it clear that the raid which was conducted on 18.07.2006 for which complaint dated 21.07.2006 was sent through post and was received by the police station only on 08.08.2006. The delay in filing the complaint also goes against the provision of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
8. Section 135 in the third proviso of Section (1) lays down the statutory presumption which is required to be raised, where the prosecution initially is required to prove that the artificial means or means not authorized by the Page 22 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined Board or a licensee or a supplier exist for abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer. The presumption is required to be drawn, that the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. The contrary can be brought on record to dislodge the presumption. 8.1 Here in the present case, the wire as well the meter stated to be seized had not been produced before the Court to prove such unauthorized use. The presumption could be drawn as provided only against the consumer, while in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was a consumer of UGVCL. The rebuttal evidence has been self-explanatory on the record, where the prosecution witnesses as Officers of UGVCL have not clarified that the case of theft as recorded was by the consumer himself or by the occupier with the use of unauthorized mean. The accused has not been proved to be the occupier of the premises. Page 23 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined 8.2 The Electricity (Rights Of Consumers) Rules, 2020 defines the "consumer" as under Section 2(f) and "occupier" under Section 2(k). The definition is abstracted here-in-below:
"(f) "Consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a distribution licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under the Electricity Act, 2003 or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a distribution licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be.
(k) "occupier" means the owner, tenant or person in occupation of the premises where electricity is used or proposed to be used;"
8.2 The definition gives the meaning of the "consumer" - a person who is supplied with the electricity for his own use. Thus, when the notice was issued to the consumer for the payment of the money which was the supplementary bill, the case against the present appellant- Page 24 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined accused would not survive as he had not been proved as the consumer of UGVCL. Further, no evidence has been proved that the appellant- accused was the occupier of the place. Reliance has been placed on the Panchayat Receipt Exh.20 to show that the appellant was the owner of the house no. A/30, however, nothing is proved on record that the raid was conducted in the house no. A/30. It was only the police who could bring the death certificate and could clarify that the consumer was Kesharbhai Dalabhai Chaudhary.
9. In view of the analysis of the evidence with regard to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, the observation of the learned Judge convicting the present appellant-accused for the Electricity Act, 2003 becomes erroneous. The prosecution witness has failed to prove the case as per the provisions of The Electricity Act, 2003.
Page 25 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1406/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2025 undefined
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction order dated 24.03.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Mehsana in Special Electricity Case No.54 of 2007 is set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted. The amount of the fine deposited by the appellant-accused before the Trial Court be handed over to the appellant-accused on verification of the identity. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) PARMAR KRISH/SB-02 Page 26 of 26 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:35:57 IST 2025