[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mr. Nuruddin Chhotak Baig vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 January, 2026
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
2026:BHC-AS:3045 Digitally signed
by CHITRA
SANJAY
CHITRA SONAWANE
SANJAY Date:
SONAWANE 2026.01.21
Chitra Sonawane. 20:20:20
+0530 26-REVN-78-2009.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Revision Application No.78 of 2009
Nuruddin Chhotak Baig
58 yrs., Indian Inhabitant,
Occupation: Business,
Having address at Citizen Welfare Association,
CST Road, Kapadiya Nagar Colony,
Kurla, Mumbai,
(Presently lodged in Arther Road,
Central Prison at Mumbai) ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of Bhandup Police Station
In CR No.191/1998 ... Respondent
----
Ms Ilsa Shaikh, appointed Advocate for the applicant.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for the respondent/ State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 21 January 2026.
P.C.:
None appears on behalf of the applicant. Ms Ilsa Shaikh,
who is present in the Court, is appointed as Advocate to
espouse the cause of the applicant. Legal fees to be paid by the
High Court Legal Services Committee.
2. By the present revision application, the applicant assails
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 26-REVN-78-2009.docx
the judgment and order dated 11 July 2008 passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 53rd Court, Mulund,
Mumbai, in CC No.739/P/1998, and the judgment and order
dated 13 February 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.390 of 2008, whereby
the appeal was dismissed and the applicant's conviction under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') read with Sections
39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, was confirmed.
3. The prosecution's case, briefly stated, is that the applicant
was running an industrial unit under the name and style of
Super Plastic Enterprises at Gala No.31, Madani Estate,
Sonapur Link Road, Bhandup, where the electricity was
supplied by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB).
On 31 August 1998, a Flying Squad of the MSEB conducted an
inspection of the premises and found a hole at the base of the
electric meter, which, according to the prosecution, could
permit insertion of a wire to stop rotation of the disc. It was
further alleged that, although the sanctioned load was 30 HP,
the connected load was 83.25 HP. A spot inspection report and
a panchnama were prepared, and on 2 September 1998, a First
Information Report came to be lodged alleging theft of
electrical energy to the tune of Rs.13,53,515/-. After the
investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 26-REVN-78-2009.docx
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined three
witnesses, namely, Kamlakar Ganpatrao Mate (PW-1), Deputy
Executive Engineer at the MSEB and the complainant;
Mahadeo Yadav Soannawane (PW-2), employee of the MSEB;
and Arvind Narayan Sonawane (PW-3), employee of the MSEB.
As the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused was
questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC'), as to the incriminating
circumstances found in the prosecution's witnesses, but he
denied them as false and came up with a defence that the
electricity meter allegedly tampered with was not in his
premises.
5. After appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate
convicted the applicant for the offences punishable under
Section 379 of the IPC read with Sections 39 and 44 of the
Indian Electricity Act, 1910. He was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulations. In appeal, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed
the conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
concurrent findings of conviction, the applicant has preferred
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 26-REVN-78-2009.docx
the present revision application.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and with
their able assistance, perused the records.
7. It is undisputed that the prosecution has examined only
officials of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. No
independent witness from the locality or the industrial estate
has been examined, nor has the panch witness to the alleged
panchnama been brought before the Court. Though the
evidence of departmental witnesses is not to be rejected merely
on that ground, the rule of prudence requires greater scrutiny,
particularly in prosecutions involving allegations of theft of
electricity. In the present case, such caution is conspicuously
absent.
8. Notably, PW-2 was declared hostile and did not fully
support the prosecution's case. The remaining witnesses were
members of the Flying Squad, which conducted the inspection.
The Investigating Officer was not examined, and no
explanation for such non-examination is forthcoming. This
omission assumes significance in view of the discrepancies
brought on record and has caused prejudice to the defence.
9. A crucial infirmity in the prosecution's case relates to the
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 26-REVN-78-2009.docx
identity of the electric meter. The electricity bills produced by
the defence, which were duly proved, reflect a meter number
different from the one mentioned in the inspection report and
FIR. The prosecution has failed to produce any
contemporaneous documentary record such as installation
details, meter change register, or consumer ledger to
conclusively establish that the meter alleged to have been
tampered with was installed at the premises of the applicant.
The explanation offered by the prosecution witnesses that the
bills pertained to another meter is vague, unsupported by
documentary evidence, and insufficient to dispel the serious
doubt created in the prosecution's case.
10. Admittedly, no wire or foreign object was found inserted
in the meter at the time of inspection. The prosecution relies
solely on the presence of a hole in the meter body. PW-3, in his
cross-examination, has categorically admitted that, due to the
rainy season, the outer layer of the meter rusts, and no expert
or technical evidence has been led to rule out the possibility of
natural damage, wear and tear, or a defect. The inference that
the hole constituted an artificial means for dishonest
abstraction of energy is based on conjecture and not on proof
beyond a reasonable doubt. The allegation of excess connected
load is also not supported by independent technical evidence.
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 26-REVN-78-2009.docx
No load test report or scientific assessment has been produced.
The mere mention of connected load in the inspection note
prepared by the inspecting officials cannot, by itself, establish
the offence.
11. It is well settled that while exercising revisional
jurisdiction, this Court does not re-appreciate evidence as an
appellate court. However, where the findings recorded by the
courts below are based on a misreading of evidence, ignore
material contradictions, or result in a miscarriage of justice,
interference is not only permissible but warranted. The present
case falls squarely within those parameters. The prosecution has
failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence
beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction of the applicant,
therefore, cannot be sustained.
12. Accordingly, the revision application deserves to be
allowed. The judgment and order dated 11 July 2008 passed by
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 53rd Court, Mulund,
Mumbai, in CC No.739/P/1998, and the judgment and order
dated 13 February 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.390 of 2008,
convicting the applicant, are quashed and set aside. The
applicant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 26-REVN-78-2009.docx
379 of the IPC read with Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910.
[R.N. Laddha, J.]
__________________________________________________
21 January 2026
