[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Dattatraya Digambar Biradar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 14 January, 2026

                                                       CR-REVN-276-2025
                                    -1-

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

        CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.276 OF 2025

Dattatraya Digambar Biradar,
Age : 28 years, Occu. : Pharmacist,
R/o. Malewadi, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur                                     ... Applicant/Revision
                                                  Petitioner (Accused)
           Versus
1.   The State of Maharashtra,
     Through Officer In Charge,
     Police Station Udgir (City),
     Dist. Latur.

2.   Tukaram Goroba Wadwale,
     Age : 51 years, Occu. : Service,
     Additional Executive Engineer,
     Flying Squad, M.S.E.D.C.L., Latur,
     R/o. Sale Galli, Old Power House, Latur,
     Tq & Dist. Latur.                          ... Respondents
                                                 (Resp. No.2 is informant)

                                  .....
Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Respondent No.1- State.
Mr. Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                  .....
                              CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                      RESERVED ON : 13 JANUARY 2026
                    PRONOUNCED ON : 14 JANUARY 2026

ORDER :

1. Present revision, arising out of impugned order dated

11.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Dist.

Latur on application below Exh.14 in Special Case No. 45 of 2024,

pressed into service by present revision petitioner seeking discharge

under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

CR-REVN-276-2025

2. In nutshell, the Assistant Executive Engineer, who is the

informant herein, was the party to the flying squad of MSEDCL for

inspecting theft of electricity. During the visit to the premises of M/s

Yeshwant Dal Mill, it was detected that there was tampering with the

meter for committing theft of electricity and therefore Dattatraya

Digambar Biradar i.e. present revision petitioner, who was present at

the premises, was booked for an offence punishable under section

135 of the Electricity Act.

After investigation, revision petitioner was charge-

sheeted before the Special Court and was to be tried in Special Case

No. 45 of 2024; however, before framing of the charge, an application

at Exh.14 was pressed into service seeking discharge on the ground

that there is false implication and there is no material to proceed

against the revision petitioner. Such application was contested by

informant, i.e. present respondent no.2 herein, and after appreciating

the submissions advanced by each of the side, the application at

Exh.14 came to be rejected by impugned order dated 11.07.2025.

The said order is under challenge in the present revision.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Salunke for revision petitioner

would submit that, there is false implication. According to him, there

was nothing to demonstrate that revision petitioner had committed CR-REVN-276-2025

the alleged offence. According to him, merely being present at the

premises, action has been taken and he has been implicated. It is

further submitted that, there is ample evidence to show that

Yeshwant Dal Mill was run by father of revision petitioner and those

documents are placed on record along with affidavit. According to

learned counsel, there is no strong prima facie case to make out him

face trial, and therefore, it is his submission that, learned trial court

ought to have discharged the accused. In support of above

contention, he sought reliance on the judgment of this court in the

case of Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra , AIROnline

2009 Bom, (Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2009), and more particularly

relied on paragraph no.25 of the said judgment and ultimately urges

to allow the revision.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Bajaj for respondent no.2 informant

strongly opposed the above application on the ground that the

revision petitioner was present at the premises, of which there is no

dispute. Learned counsel took this court through the provisions of

section 135 of the Electricity Act and submitted that, the very

provision explicitly shows that, whoever is present is liable for

action. Thus, according to him, present revision petitioner being

present during the inspection and theft of electricity was detected,

therefore he was rightly named. Lastly, he supports the impugned

order of trial court rejecting the application at Exh.14.

CR-REVN-276-2025

5. Before adverting to merits of the case, it would be just and

proper to spell out settled legal position while considering discharge

application under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. It is fairly

settled position that, at such stage, Court dealing with such

application is merely expected to determine existence of prima facie

material for proceeding to frame charge and make accused persons

face trial. Material gathered during investigation is expected to be

sifted with limited purpose to find out whether there are sufficient

grounds to proceed against accused. Neither in-depth analysis nor

meticulous analysis of evidence is expected at such stage. Thus, the

only duty of Court is to ascertain whether there is prima facie

material suggesting existence of essential ingredients for the

offences, which are alleged to be committed.

Above position has been time and again reiterated since

the cases of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union

of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979) 3 SCC 4, and a

decade back in the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of

Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander

and another (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Tamil Nadu (By Inspector of

Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others.

(2014) 11 SCC 709; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency CR-REVN-276-2025

(2019) 7 SCC 148; and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar

Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.

6. After considering the papers, it appears that, on

12.06.2024, informant Tukaram Wadwale, an Additional Executive

Engineer of MSEDCL company along with his squad paid visit to M/s

Yeshwant Dal Mill situated at Malewadi Road, Udgir for inspecting

the electric meter. In the complaint revision petitioner is named to

be present there. It is reported that, during inspection, it was

revealed that, there was tampering with the meter and as such,

committed theft of electricity of Rs.5,70,061/-. In the complaint itself,

it is stated that, action is initiated against the user Dattatraya

Digambar Biradar. After investigation, revision petitioner seems to

be charge-sheeted.

7. Now, discharge is sought by invoking section 227 of

Cr.P.C., primarily on the ground that the father of revision petitioner

runs the said mill, and the electricity connection and related papers

are in the name of his father and applicant has no concerned,

therefore, it would be futile to make him face trial. It is also his

submission that there is no prima facie strong evidence in the charge-

sheet to make him face trial.

CR-REVN-276-2025

8. After considering the submissions advanced by both

sides, it is emerging that, action is sought to be taken against present

revision petitioner for the commission of offence under section 135 of

Electricity Act. The section 135 of Electricity Act, reads as under :-"

Section 135. Theft of Electricity. - [(1) 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."

CR-REVN-276-2025

It is explicit from the above provision that, as pointed out,

whoever is present during the inspection is liable for action.

9. Therefore, when the name of present revision petitioner is

reflected in the report for being present at the time of visit and

inspection, he is duly named. Subsequently, investigation is carried

out and charge-sheet is filed.

10. In the light of above, report and statements recorded by

Investigating Officer, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie

case. In fact, it is otherwise, as the applicant is specifically named and

he is shown to be present at the premises where the theft of

electricity was said to be committed, there is no perversity in the