Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surender Kumar Sain vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 December, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:44126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision Nos. : 5, 6, 150 & 220 of 2022
.
Reserved on : 17th September, 2025
Decided on : 16th December, 2025
1. Criminal Revision No.5 of 2022
Surender Kumar Sain ...Petitioner
of
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
2.
rt
Criminal Revision No.6 of 2022
Sushil Kumar Goel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
3. Criminal Revision No.150 of 2022
Satinder Mohan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
4. Criminal Revision No.220 of 2022
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Petitioner
Versus
Satinder Mohan & Others ...Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS
2 2025:HHC:44126
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
.
Cr. Revision Nos.5 & 6 of 2022.
For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Anubhav
Chopra and Ms. Swati Sharma,
Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Varun Chandel, Mr. Mohinder
of
Zharaick, Additional Advocate
General and Ms. Ranjna Patial,
Deputy Advocate General.
rt
Cr. Revision No.150 of 2022.
For the petitioner : Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate vice Ms.
Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Varun Chandel, Mr. Mohinder
Zharaick, Additional Advocate
General and Ms. Ranjna Patial,
Deputy Advocate General.
Cr. Revision No.220 of 2022.
For the petitioner : Mr. Varun Chandel, Mr. Mohinder
Zharaick, Additional Advocate
General and Ms. Ranjna Patial,
Deputy Advocate General.
For the respondents : Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate vice Ms.
Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Anubhav
Chopra and Ms. Swati Sharma,
Advocates, for respondents No.3 to
6.
1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS
3 2025:HHC:44126
Virender Singh, Judge
All the above titled revision petitions are being .
decided by a common order, as, Criminal Revision Nos.5, 6 and 150 of 2022 have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.12.2021, passed by the learned Special of Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court'), by virtue of which, the charges, under rt Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC, were framed against Satinder Mohan (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.150 of 2022) and Surender Kumar Sain (petitioner in Cr. Revision No.5 of 2022), as well as, Sushil Kumar Goel (petitioner in Cr.
Revision No.6 of 2022), against whom, the learned trial Court has framed the charges under Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. By way of the same order, learned trial Court has discharged the respondents, in Criminal Revision No.220 of 2022.
2. Parties to the present lis are hereinafter referred to in the same manner, in which, they were referred to by the learned trial Court.
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS4 2025:HHC:44126
3. Brief facts, leading to filing of the above titled Criminal Revisions, before this Court, may be summed up, .
as under: 3.1. Police of Police Station SV & ACB, Nahan, has submitted the chargesheet, in case FIR No.7 of 2011, dated 24.6.2011, registered under Section 135(1) (a) of the of Electricity Act, Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and Sections rt 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the accused persons before the learned trial Court.
3.2. The said charge sheet has been filed on the ground that on 24.06.2011, the then Additional Superintendent of Police, Vimukt Ranjan, SV & ACB, Shimla, Camp at Nahan, has submitted a rukka for registration of the FIR, disclosing therein, that on 24.06.2011, the I.O., along with Dy. SP Ramesh Sharma and Inspector Vidhi Chand, HC Yashwant, in the official vehicle, were present at Kala Amb, where, they came to know from the reliable sources, that at village Joharon, near the premises of M/s Jasmer Packers and Shri Khaduji Industries, in a small room, one power connection of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:44126 State Electricity Board Limited has been installed, which is in the name of Satinder Mohan and said Satinder Mohan is .
running a brick kiln in the adjoining boundary of Haryana in village Dera Hamidpur, Tehsil Narayangarh, District Ambala and the said person, as per the information, in connivance with the officials and officers of the H.P. State of Electricity Board, has laid underground cable and using the power supply for the brick kiln, which is situated in rt Haryana. As such, by using the electricity from the connection, which was issued by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, was running the tube well, in his Brick Kiln in Haryana and he has gained illegal benefit by causing financial loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh.
As per the said information, if the said spot is visited, then the underground cable can be recovered.
3.3. The said information was found to be authentic and in order to verify the said information, the I.O., along with other police officials, reached at village Joharon and he called the then SDO HPSEB Kala Amb S.K. Goel, upon which, he reached at the spot, along with the officials.
Thereafter, Sanjeev Kumar, from M/s Jasmer Packers and ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 6 2025:HHC:44126 Satinder Mohan, owner of Brick kiln, were directed to provide the key of the said room. When, the said room was .
opened, three meters of LT Three Phase connection were found inside the room.
3.4. Apart from this, three phase underground cable from those meters was found. With the help of JCB, the of said underground cable was dugout. The said cable was found to be used for doing theft of power supply for brick rt kiln of Satinder Mohan, installed in the boundary of Haryana.
3.5. As per the factual position, it was found that said act has been conducted, in connivance with the officials and officers of the Electricity Department, as such, rukka was prepared, upon which, the FIR, in question, under Section 135(1)(a) of Electricity Act, read with Sections 420 and 120B IPC and Sectiona 13(2) and 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered.
Thereafter, the investigation was conducted.
3.6. The initial investigation was conducted by Inspector Vidya Chand. He has visited the spot and prepared the spot map. Thereafter, the room near Jasmer ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 7 2025:HHC:44126 Packers was got opened, after obtaining the key from Satinder Mohan. The said room was opened in the .
presence of SDO HPSEB Kala Amb S.K. Goel, Yashpal former Chairman Panchayat Samiti, and Suleman, Vice Chairman, Panchayat Samiti and inside the room, three electricity meters of LT three phase connection were found.
of Apart from this, underground cable, which was dug out with the help of JCB, was found to be installed upto the rt brick kiln of Satinder Mohan in Haryana.
3.7. The meter readings of all the three meters were checked and those meters were taken into possession. The total length of the cable was found to be 254 meters. The length of service wire was found to be 15 meters and length of overhead wire was found to be 240 meters. The measurement of the wire from meter to the kitkat wire was found to be 2 meters. The meter reading of all the three meters was noted down.
3.8. On 25.06.2011, the Clerk of Electricity Department has produced the extract of the meter reading of meter No.KAS7, issued in the name of Satinder Mohan, Sanction load of which was 7.46 kw, along with photocopy ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:44126 of circular order No.03/2001, dated 16.01.2001 and consumer case file of Satinder Mohan, along with relevant .
documents. The same were taken into possession.
3.9. Thereafter, accused Satinder Mohan had produced original bills and receipts of the meter bearing No.KAS7, which were also taken into possession.
of 3.10. Subsequently, accused Satinder Mohan, owner of Brick kiln, J.E. Sunder Singh, were arrested on rt 25.06.2011. Both were produced before the learned trial Court, from where, they were released on bail.
3.11. On 27.06.2013, Halqa Patwari, Trilokpur was directed to provide the report regaridng Khasra No.420/267/102, measuring 4 biswas and as per the report of Patwari, the said land was found to be owned by Baikunth Lal son of Shri Ram Swaroop, resident of Trilokpur. The said village was found to be situated in Himachal Pradesh and across the road, boundary of State of Haryana is there.
3.12. On 28.06.2011, SDM was requested to depute the competent officer to demarcate the land. On 29.06.2011, Clerk of Electricity Board, Wakif Hussain, has ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:44126 submitted the attested photocopy of Consumer Ledger, which was taken into possession. Thereafter, the requisite .
correspondence was made with District Food and Supply Controller to provide the record regarding M/s Markanda Brick Kiln.
3.13. As per the record, licence No.75 dated of 27.12.1988, was issued to M/s Markanda Brick Kiln, village Dera Narayangarh, District Ambala and Satinder rt Mohan Dhang etc., were the cosharers, in it.
3.14. On 21.07.2011, Niab Tehsildar, along with Halqa Patwari, has demarcated the land. As per the demarcation, land bearing Khasra No.420/267/102 was found to be in the name of Baikunth Lal resident of Trilokpur and as per the agreement dated 28.09.1999, the same was rented out to M/s Markanda Welding Works Joharon, through accused Satinder Mohan, Proprietor, at the rate of Rs.1000/ per month.
3.15. On. 02.08.2011, accused Sushil Kumar Goel, SDO Kala Amb was arrested. During investigation, comparison was done with electricity consumption rates in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, by requesting SDO ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:44126 Operations SubDivision, UHBVN, Narayangarh to provide sale circular/sale instructions of tariff from the year 1998 .
to 2012. Those documents were produced on 09.04.2012, which were taken into possession.
3.16. As per letter No.869 dated 09.04.2012, Halqa Patwari, had provided information that at place Joharon, of from the month of November, 1999 to June 2011, Brick Kiln was there, whereas during that period, according to rt the report of Patwari, no Brick Kiln was found existing there.
3.17. On 23.07.2012, MB's No.135, 201, 208, 219, along with original application moved by Satinder Mohan to SDO Kala Amb, on 20.04.2011, was taken into possession. Out of the above documents MB No.135, dated 26.07.2012, was returned to Sushil Kumar, SDO.
On 26.07.2012, one measurement Book No.NED721, was produced by Sushil Kumar, Senior Assistant, SDO (E), which was also taken into possession.
3.18. During investigation, record from the office of Executive Engineer, Nahan and SDO Office Kala Amb, Electricity Department, has been perused. As per the ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:44126 record, from the year 1999 to 2011, in Electricity Sub Division, Kala Amb as Section Incharge, JE Dinesh .
Chauhan, JE Vinod Parmar, JE Jitender Singh and JE Gurbachan Singh, were posted and their appointment and posting orders were obtained.
3.19. As per the record, JE Jitender Singh Chauhan, of remained posted w.e.f. 01.03.1999 to 31.05.2001, w.e.f.
01.01.2002 to rt 17.03.2003 and w.e.f. 03.05.2008 to 21.07.2009 as JE Incharge Section Kala Amb.
3.20. During investigation, it has also been found that Vaikunth Lal resident of Trilokpur has executed an agreement dated 28.09.1999 with M/s Markanda Welding Works Joharon, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur and the said room was rented out for five years. At that time, JE Jitender Singh Chauhan was Section Incharge, Kala Amb, and during his tenure, the electricity connection was installed.
3.21. JE Vinod Kumar Parmar remained posted as JE Section Incharge Kala Amb w.e.f. 01.06.2001 to 31.12.2001.
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS12 2025:HHC:44126 3.22. JE Gurbachan Singh remained posted as JE Incharge (dual Charge), Section Kala Amb, w.e.f.
.
26.02.2005 to 29.07.2005.
3.23. JE Dinesh Chuahan, remained posted w.e.f.
30.07.2005 to 10.04.2008 and w.e.f. 22.07.2009 to 31.10.2010 as JE Section Incharge Kala Amb.
of 3.24. JE Sushil Kumar Goel, remained posted as JE Section Incharge Kala Amb, from March 2003 to February rt 2005 and thereafter from 31.07.2009 to the year 2011, as SDO (E)/Incharge.
3.25. JE Sunder Singh remained posted as JE Section Incharge, Kala Amb, from November 2010 to 2011.
3.26. As per the police, Surender Singh Saini, who was a Government Contractor, has hatched a conspiracy with Satinder Mohan and submitted a wrong test report for obtaining electricity consumption meter.
3.27. During investigation, it was found that meter No.KAS7, which was installed in the rented room of Satinder Mohan, in the year 1999, had burnt in the year 2011 and thereafter, Satinder Mohan had deposited Rs.5600/ and the then JE Sunder Singh got installed ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:44126 three phase line, in the said rented accommodation, despite knowing the fact that there was no welding .
instrument installed in the said room and the fact that electricity is being stolen. He has neither taken action, nor, informed his senior officers, in this regard. All the officials of the Electricity Department have misused their of powers and helped Satinder Mohan to commit theft of the electricity from the year 1999 to 2011.
rt 3.28. During investigation, on the basis of the record so collected from the office of Executive Engineer, HPSEB, Division Nahan, it was found that the Junior Engineer, deputed as Section Incharge HPSEB Office Kala Amb, was responsible for smooth supply of electricity. He was also responsible for making the reading of Industrial/Irrigation/ Agriculture connection, upto 20 KW and as per Sales Circular No.3/2001 dated 16.01.2002 (instruction No.121(1) of the Sales Manual) and as per letter No.OCN/CBMisc/201111969, dated 24.01.2011, was authorized to nab the theft of power supply.
3.29. As per the Sales Manual Instruction No.211, Junior Engineer was also bound to check the meters and ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:44126 other electricity equipments installed in the industrial area and it was also mandatory for him to submit the quarterly .
compliance report to the seniors, but, all the accused persons during their tenure have not adhered to the instructions, in this regard and intentionally acted in negligent manner.
of 3.30. Elaborating this fact, it has been submitted that no one has inspected the room allegedly obtained by rt accused Satinder Mohan, when electricity consumption meter KAS7 was installed, from where, the power supply was unauthorizedly used for the brick kiln, especially within the boundary of the State of Haryana. Due to the act and conduct of the accused persons, loss was caused to the State of Himachal Pradesh and undue benefit was given to Satinder Mohan.
3.31. During investigation, the documents with regard to the registration of M/s Markanda Welding Works Kala Amb was obtained from the office of Member Secretary, Single Window Clearance Agency, Kala Amb, and as per the letter dated 29.06.2011, M/s Markanda Welding Works was not registered with Industrial ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:44126 Department. From this fact, it has been concluded that accused Satinder Mohan, who is owner of Brick Kiln, in .
connivance with the officers and officials of the Electricity Department, obtained a room on rent and got installed the electricity consumption meters, unauthorizedly and used to pay the bill of the same.
of 3.32. On the basis of the fact that during investigation, original electricity bill payment receipts were rt produced by Satinder Mohan, it has been concluded that this meter was got installed by him unauthorizedly, in order to steal the electricity.
3.33. It is the further case of the police that during investigation, it has been found that Satinder Mohan, in a planned manner and in order to commit fraud, had obtained a room on rent from Vaikunth Lal at village Joharon and thereafter, without any registration, he has got installed M/s Markanda Welding Works, and in connivance with the officers and officials of the Electricity Department, has obtained illegal connection and thereafter, the test report was also prepared by Surender Kumar Saini, Government Contractor, unauthorizedly and ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 16 2025:HHC:44126 after obtaining the electricity consumption meter, said Satinder Mohan, instead of doing welding works, laid a .
underground wire and transmitted the electricity to his brick kiln in Haryana and used the electricity power unauthorizedly, as the rates of electricity consumption were high in Haryana, in comparison to Himachal Pradesh.
of The specimen signatures of the accused persons were obtained and report from SFSL Junga has been received.
rt 3.34. On the basis of the investigation, so conducted, according to the police, the evidence for the commission of offence, under Section 135(1) (a) of the Electricity Act read with Sectiond 420 and 120B IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was found against Vinod Kumar Parmar, JE Sunder Singh, JE Gurbachan Singh, JE Sushil Kumar Goel, JE Jitender Chauhan, JE Dinesh Chauhan, Satinder Mohan and Surender Saini.
4. On the basis of the said chargesheet, the learned trial Court, after hearing learned APP, as well as, learned counsel representing the accused has passed the order dated 21.12.2021, by virtue of which, respondents ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 17 2025:HHC:44126 No.1 to 7 in Cr. Revision No.220 of 2022, were ordered to be discharged, under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act .
and the petitioners in Cr. Revision No.5, 6, & 150 of 2022, were chargesheeted, as referred to above.
5. Against the discharge of seven accused, State has preferred Criminal Revision No.220 of 2022, assailing of the order dated 21.12.2021, passed by the learned trial Court, on the ground that the learned trial Court has not rt considered the fact that from the bare reading of the chargesheet, offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) is clearly made out against all the accused persons and the learned trial Court has wrongly came to the conclusion that the offence, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, was compounded by the Electricity Authority against all the accused.
6. According to learned Additional Advocate General, the learned trial Court has not considered the fact that the HPSEB has imposed a penalty on respondent No.1 alone and has not touched the aspect of conspiracy between respondent No.1 and other accused persons.
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS18 2025:HHC:44126
7. The order has further been assailed on the ground that the learned trial Court has not considered the .
fact that the prosecution sanction was obtained against the accused persons, after going through the entire record and the intention of the HPSEBL was not to give clean chit to all the accused persons. Learned trial Court has wrongly of discharged accused No.4 to 7.
8. On the basis of the above facts, learned rt Additional Advocate General has prayed that Criminal Revision NO.220 of 2022, may kindly be allowed by setting aside the order dated 21.12.2021, whereby respondents No.2 to 7 were ordered to be discharged and they be also chargesheeted along with other accused by dismissing the Criminal Revision Petitions filed by them, before this Court.
9. Accused Satinder Mohan, has filed Criminal Revision No.150 of 2022, assailing the order dated 21.12.2021, by virtue of which, he has been charge sheeted by the learned trial Court, on the ground that the learned trial Court has not considered the fact that that for running Brick kiln, there was no requirement of electricity supply, whereas, he has started welding work at Johron, ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 19 2025:HHC:44126 Kala Amb and at the relevant time, he came to know about the fact that under the Rules and Regulations, prescribed .
by the HPSEB, for bordering areas power connections for electricity supply, were given for running a tubewells in Haryana border area to a number of villagers. Thereafter, he has inquired the matter from HPSEBL officials and also of applied for such connection on 21.10.1999 and submitted his affidavit, and other required documents. Thereafter, the rt connection was sanctioned in his favour.
10. It is the further case of the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.150 of 2022, that he was under the genuine and bona fide belief that the electricity supply for the tubewell was provided under Instruction No.26(D)(6) of the Sales Manual of the Electricity Board.
11. According to the petitioner, from the allegations, as levelled against him, ingredients of theft have not been made out. According to the petitioners, there are number of other connections, which have been given in the State of Haryana, on the basis of the sale circular No.26(D)(6) of the Sales Manual of the Electricity Department.
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS20 2025:HHC:44126
12. The petitioner has further assailed the order, on the ground that the competent electricity authority, after .
the incident, assessed the loss of other charges as Rs.86,196/ and the petitioner vide receipt No.0415145, dated 06.08.2016, deposited the said amount and offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, has been of compounded, under the provisions of Electricity Act. This fact, according to petitioner Satinder Mohan, has not been rt considered properly, by the learned trial Court.
13. The order has also been assailed on the ground that on one hand, the competent authority of Electricity Department has compounded the matter and penalty has been imposed, on the other hand, he cannot be tried for the theft of electricity, once the offence has been compounded and he shall be deemed to be acquitted within the meaning of Section 300 of Cr.PC.
14. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate vice Ms. Vandna Kuthiala, Advocate, has prayed that Criminal Revision No.150 of 2022, may kindly be allowed by setting aside the order dated 21.12.2021, passed by the learned trial Court, by virtue of which, the ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 21 2025:HHC:44126 charges were ordered to be framed against petitioner Satinder Mohan.
.
15. Accused Sushil Kumar Geol, has filed Criminal Revision No.6 of 2022, against the order dated 21.12.2021, passed by the learned trial Court, mainly, on the ground that the ingredients of the offence punishable under of Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, are not made out against him.
rt
16. According to petitioner Sushil Kumar Goel, the learned trial Court, on the one hand, has held that there is no document on record or any circumstance shown by the prosecution that accused No.2 to 7, have adopted any corrupt or illegal means for getting any pecuniary advantage or valuable things for themselves or for accused Satinder Mohan, to bring their act under subclauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on the other hand, without returning findings has held that a prima facie case is made out against petitioner Sushil Kumar Goel.
17. The order has also been assailed on the ground that petitioner Sushil Kumar Goel, along with other ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 22 2025:HHC:44126 employees of the Electricity Board, remained posted as JE from 1999 to 2011 and were guilty of not adhering to the .
instructions of the Sales Manual, specifically Instructions No.121 and 18 of the Sales Manual, whereas, according to instruction No.211 of the Sales Manual, AE/AEE were supposed to check 25% connections of Small Power, of Agriculture WIP and CL, once in a year and Executive Engineer was supposed to check atleast 10% of the rt minimum connections, as such, they would have been arrayed as accused. Instruction No.211 of the Sales Manual was not properly considered by the learned trial Court.
18. According to petitioner Sushil Kumar Goel, the learned trial Court has ordered framing of charges against him, on the basis of assumptions and presumptions.
19. Highlighting the fact that in the year 1999, petitioner Sushhil Kumar Goel was neither posted as JE, nor, SDO, and for the reasons, best known to the prosecution, neither the SDO, who was under an obligation to check the cable line and the connection, nor the Executive Engineer, has been arrayed as accused.
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS23 2025:HHC:44126
20. It is the further case of petitioner Sushil Kumar Goel that he remained associated in the investigation, from .
day one. Highlighting the fact that once the offence has been compounded under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, he cannot be tried for the theft of electricity.
21. According to petitionerSushil Kumar Goel, the of learned trial Court has not considered the fact that it was not a case of theft of energy, but, was a case of rt unauthorized use of electricity and Notification No.12842 56, which, inter alia, provides guidelines for dealing with the cases of theft and unauthorized use of electricity, under Sections 135 and 126, has been brushed aside.
According to him, the alleged act, at the most, falls within the purview of Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act and the same was compoundable.
22. According to petitioner Sushil Kumar Goel, the learned trial Court, on the one hand, has held that the compounding has been done by the Board and on the other hand, it has been held that there is prima facie case punishable under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS24 2025:HHC:44126
23. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhairav Gupta, .
Mr. Anubhav Chopra and Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocates, has prayed that Criminal Revision No.6 of 2022, may kindly be allowed by setting aside the order dated 21.12.2021.
of
24. Petitioner Surender Kumar Saini, has filed Criminal Revision No.5 of 2022, against the order dated rt 21.12.2021, passed by the learned trial Court, mainly on the ground that there is no material on record to suggest the existence of ingredients necessary for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC, against him.
25. Like other petitioners, he has asserted the fact that he cannot be prosecuted for the offence, for which, he has been chargesheeted. According to petitioner Surender Kumar Saini, he was AClass Government Electrical Contractor and issued test report on the request of accused Satinder Mohan and at that time, he was not supposed to get the land demarcated to ascertain whether ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 25 2025:HHC:44126 the place where the electricity meter was to be installed was within the boundary of Himachal Pradesh or not.
.
26. According to petitioner Surender Kumar Saini, as per the record, it was issued for installation at the address of Satinder Mohan, village Johran, Post Office Kala Amb. According to the petitioner, once the verification has of been done by the Assistant Engineer, his role comes to an end. According to him, had there been any ambiguity in rt the test report, the connection could not have been released in favour of accused Satinder Mohan.
27. The order, by virtue of which the charges have been framed, against petitioner Surender Kumar Saini, has also been assailed by him, on the ground, that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that he had only submitted the test report, qua the existence of the Brick Kiln, where, the electricity meter was to be installed.
According to him, the test report was, thereafter, submitted to the Electricity Board, on the basis of which, the electricity connection was sanctioned and the site was duly verified by the concerned Assistant Engineer and thereafter the electricity connection was released. The test report ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 26 2025:HHC:44126 was submitted by petitioner Surender Kumar Saini, in the year 1999 and the alleged theft has taken place in the year .
2011.
28. Like other petitioners, he has also asserted the fact that once the Electricity Board has compounded the offence and received the penalty imposed upon petitioner of Satinder Mohan, then, as per the provisions of Sections 135, 151, 152 of the Indian Electricity Act, he cannot be rt tried for the theft of electricity and other provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, as, the offence has been compounded, under Section 152 of the Indian Electricity Act. According to him, it is not a case of theft of energy, but, it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity and the Notification No.1284256, dated 25.10.2011, in which, the guidelines, dealing with the unauthorized use of electricity, under Sections 135 and 126 have been mentioned, has not been considered by the learned trial Court.
29. According to petitioner Surender Kumar Saini, this is a case of unauthorized use of electricity, as per Section 126 of Indian Electricity Act and the same has also been compounded. Lastly, it has been pleaded that ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 27 2025:HHC:44126 from the evidence, so collected, by the prosecution, no case under Sections 420 and 120B IPC is made out.
.
30. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, by setting aside the order, by virtue of which, the charges have been ordered to be framed against the accused persons.
of
31. Petitioners, in Cr. Revision Nos.5, 6 and 150 of 2022, have assailed the order, by virtue of which, the rt charges have been framed against them, whereas, the State has preferred Criminal Revision No.220 of 2022, against the order, whereby, the learned trial Court has discharged respondents No.2 to 7.
32. Police, in the present case, has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the application for discharge, moved by the accused persons, Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board, has compounded the offence and vide receipt dated 06.12.2016, received the penalty of Rs.86,196/ from Satinder Mohan, in whose name the ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 28 2025:HHC:44126 connection, bearing No.KAS7, was installed, in the premises of M/s Markanda Welding Works.
.
33. The case, as set up, by the police, in the status report, is that accused Satinder Mohan, in connivance with the other persons, had obtained a room on rent and under the garb of running welding works, he has obtained three of phase power connection and after using the underground cable, he had continuously used the electricity in his Brick rt Kiln established, within the boundary of Haryana.
34. As stated above, the police has submitted the final report, under Section 135(1)(a) of Electricity Act, Sections 420 & 120B IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, are reproduced, as under: "OFFENCES AND PENALTIES 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 29 2025:HHC:44126 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,
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for of which the usage of electricity was authorised, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a rt term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both:
Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or 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 the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity;
(ii) exceeds 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, 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS
30 2025:HHC:44126 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 for that period from any other source or generating station:
PROVIDED ALSO that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorized by the of Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any rt abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.
(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity:
Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorized for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity:
Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty four hours from the time of such disconnection:
Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS
31 2025:HHC:44126 this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within fortyeight hours of such deposit or payment.] .
(2) [Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be,] authorized in this behalf by the State Government may
(a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity [has been or is being,] used unauthorisedly;
of
(b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which has been, or is being, used for rt unauthorized use of electricity;
(c) examine or seize any books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under subsection (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in his presence.
(3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list:
Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises.
(4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under this Act."::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS
32 2025:HHC:44126
35. It is not the case of the police, in the present case, that the electricity consumption meter was not .
installed at the spot i.e. in the premises of M/s Markande Welding Works in village Johron, which area, admittedly, is in the territory of Himachal Pradesh, however, according to of them, the said firm was not registered with the Industrial Department and no machinery was found there.
36. rt In this view of the matter, to the considered opinion of this Court, at the best, it can be said to be a case of unauthorized use of electricity and the same falls within the definition of Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, which reads as under: 126: Assessment: (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgement the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use.
(2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS33 2025:HHC:44126 [(3) The person, on whom an order has been served under sub section (2) shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who .
shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment of the electricity charges payable by such person.] (4) Any person served with the order of of provisional assessment, may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him:
rt [xxx xxx] [(5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.] (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to 1[twice] the tariff rates applicable for the relevant category of services specified in subsection (5).
Explanation. For the purposes of this section,
(a) "assessing officer" means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government;
(b) "unauthorised use of electricity" means the usage of electricity -
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS34 2025:HHC:44126
(i) by any artificial means; or
(ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or .
(iii) through a tampered meter; or [(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised; or
(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized."] of
37. As per the receipt, the matter has been rt compounded under Section 152 of the Indian Electricity Act, by levying the penalty of Rs.86,196 and this fact has duly been acknowledged by the HPSEBL in letter dated 01.10.2016, which has been annexed as Annexure C, along with the application moved by accused Jitender Singh Chauhan. As per this letter, Chief Engineer Operation, HPSEB has intimated the Executive Director (Personnel), Shimla, qua this theft/unauthorized consumption of energy.
38. Interestingly, in the reply to the said application, a new stand has been taken by the prosecution, by pleading that the officers of HPSEB, after five years, from the date of registration of the FIR, have ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 35 2025:HHC:44126 intentionally compounded the offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act and the said .
compounding is stated to be against the provisions of Section 152 of the Indian Electricity Act. However, except the assertion as made in the reply, there is nothing on the file to demonstrate that there is any evidence even to raise of finger against the accused persons with the alleged offence punishable, under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the rt Prevention of Corruption Act.
39. Once, compounding has been done, then directing the accused persons, against whom, the learned trial Court has ordered framing of charges, would be nothing, but, double jeopardy, which is not only prohibited under Article 20 of the Constitution of India, but, also under Section 300 of the Cr.PC. It cannot be said that the compounding was done only with Satinder Mohan.
40. Once, the competent authority has compounded the offence, under Section 152 of the Electricity Act, which has been described, as theft by the prosecution, then, the said offence falls within the purview of Section 135 of the Electricity Act and the same has rightly been compounded ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 36 2025:HHC:44126 by the authorities, under Section 152 of the Act. Nothing contrary has been pointed out by the learned Additional .
Advocate General appearing for the State. In the present case, the police has filed the chargesheet, under Section 135(1)(a) of Electricity Act, Sections 420 & 120B IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, of however, the said offences have been added, mainly on the ground of alleged theft/ unauthorized use of electricity, by rt accused Satinder Mohan. Said Satinder Mohan, has compounded the offence, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
41. In such situation, the question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is as to whether, after compounding the offence, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, rest of the offences, under Sections 420 & 120B IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, survive or not.
42. Similar question has arisen before the Bombay High Court in Syed Yaqoob Syed Masood versus State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 179. Relevant paragraph 22 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 37 2025:HHC:44126 When the offences under Electricity Act are committed, these comprehensive legislation contemplates that those must be dealt with by the authorized officers of the State Electricity .
Board and its companies and the cases should be tried by Special Court established under Electricity Act. The offences are made compoundable. If the acts which squarely fall in definition of act tampering of meter and theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, is to be held also the offence under IPC, there can be prosecution on the basis of the of complaint or FIR of any person. Those cases can be tried by ordinary courts like Judicial Magistrate. The said offences will not be compoundable. If such an interpretation is to be rt made, it will be disastrous as all the provisions of Electricity Act would become redundant. We hold that, if a particular act amounts to offence under Electricity Act and also an offence under IPC, there can be prosecution only under Electricity Act as per the procedure prescribed under the Act and before the special court established under the Act. There cannot be separate prosecution before the ordinary criminal courts at the instance of any person for offence under IPC. We make it clear that, the act should be such that it should amount to offence under Electricity Act as well as IPC and not in cases where there will be offence under IPC but not under the Electricity Act. In the result, we hold that, the prosecution of the applicant under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC is not be maintainable while prosecution u/s 135 Electricity Act is already compounded. Hence, this is a fit case for quashing of the FIR against the applicant. We accordingly answer the points and pass the following order."
(self emphasis supplied)
43. In view of the above, once the offence, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, has been compounded, ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 38 2025:HHC:44126 by the competent authority, then, the accused persons cannot be forced to face the trial, under Sections 420 & .
120B IPC and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. No.117535 of 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.156 of 2018 (arising out of of SLP (Crl.) NO. 3670/2017), titled as Suresh Ganpati Halvankar versus the State of Maharashtra & Others rt has held that the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, can be compounded under Section 152 of the Electricity Act. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: " It will be seen that both Sections 135 and 138, which impose a maximum sentence of three years, both deal with theft of electricity. The High Court has taken a very narrow view of Section 152 by stating that an offence of theft is related stricto senso to Section 135 since that section alone deals with the offence of theft, but would not specifically refer to Section 138 which only indirectly relates to the offence of theft. Both the respondent as well as the petitioner before us have moved the High Court stating that Section 138 would also be so subsumed and have continued to argue the same position before us. We are of the view that this is correct in law inasmuch as the language of Section 152 specifically states ......"an offence of theft" which according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, as well as Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon, states that ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 39 2025:HHC:44126 one meaning of 'an' is 'any'. If the word 'any' is substituted for the word 'an' in Section 152, it becomes clear that any offence relating to the theft of electricity is also within the ken of .
Section 152. Section 138 also relates to theft of electricity, be it through maliciously injuring meters, and is therefore also within Section 152, and can therefore be compounded.
In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. We have been informed by learned counsel for the intervenor that the appellant of before us has been prosecuted for perjury and that the proceeding in that behalf is pending. We say nothing about the aforesaid proceedings. In that view of the matter, the appeal stands rt allowed."
45. The competent authority, in the Electricity Department, has issued detailed guidelines, with regard to the cases of theft and unauthorized use of electricity, under Sections 135 and 126 of the Electricity Act.
According to those guidelines, which were issued on 25.10.2011, by the Chief Engineer (Commercial), HPSEBL, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla4, against the alleged unauthorized user of electricity, assessment can be made by the Electricity Department, as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act. By taking into consideration the said document, the Electricity Department was within its ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 40 2025:HHC:44126 authority to compound the offence. Relevant portion of those detailed guidelines, is reproduced, as under: .
"DETAILED GUIDELINES SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR DEALING WITH THE CASES OF THEFT & UNAUTHORIZED USE OF ELECTRICITY UNDER SECTION 135 & 126.
The unauthorized use of electricity has been of explained in the Electricity Act, 2003 and the procedure and clarification has been given in Himachal Pradesh Electricity Supply code 2009. As per the requirement of the Act, Govt. of H.P. has rt also issued necessary notification authorizing Assessing/Inspecting Officer. The detailed provisions are as under: 1 (a) Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 provides that:
1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments. gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use.
2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed.
3) The person, on whom an order has been served under subsection (2), shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS
41 2025:HHC:44126 assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person.
.
4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment may, accept xach assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of the service of such provisional assessment order upon him.
of
5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such rt unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection.
6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in subsection (5).
ExplanationFor the purposes of this section:
a) "Assessing Officer means an officer of a State Government or board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government;
b) "Unauthorized use of electricity means the usage of electricity
i) by any artificial means, or
ii) by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority or licensee: or ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 42 2025:HHC:44126
iii) through a tampered meter, or
iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized, or .
v) for the premises for areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized.
I (b) Provisions of supply code 2009 are reproduced below:
of Unauthorized use of Electricity:
6.1.1 An "Assessing Officer." designated as such by the State Government under Section 126 of the Act will, suomoto or on receipt of rt information/complaint regarding "unauthorized use of electricity as explained in Explanation (b) of the said section, promptly inspect such premises.
6.1.2 The assessing officer and other members of his team will at the time of inspection carry along with them photo identity cards, which will, on demand, be shown to the person present at site before the premises.
6.1.3: If on inspection of the premises/area and for scrutiny of the records, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that the consumer is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he will prepare an inspection report interalia indicating connected load for unauthorized use of electricity, condition of meter and its seals and also details of evidence substantiating the unauthorized use. The assessing officer will wherever possible photograph/video graph/the means of such unauthorized use.
6.1.4: The assessing officer will sign the inspection report and a copy handed over to the person or his/her representative present at site.
The person present at site may also sign the inspection report. In case of refusal to accept the ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 43 2025:HHC:44126 report, a copy of the inspection report will be pasted at a conspicuous place in/outside the premises and another copy of the same shall be sent under registered post.
.
6.1.5: In case theft of electricity is detected by the assessing officer at the time of inspection under para 6.1.1, and in case the assessing officer is himself not an authorized officer, to he appointed by the State Government under Section 135 of the Act, an immediate reference reporting the facts will be made to the of authorized officer for taking further action under para 6.2. The assessing officer will also take suitable measures to ensure the status of the means adopted for theft is maintained as 'in rt found condition at the premises till investigation is initiated by the authorized officer.
6.1.6: The assessing officer will provisionally assess the amount payable by the person benefited by the unauthorized use of electricity as per procedure specified in Annexure1.
6.1.7: The provisional assessment order will be issued within fortyeight hours of inspection and served upon the person in such a manner as may be prescribed by the State Government.
6.1.8 The person served with the order of provisional assessment may accept such axsessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of the service of the order on him.
6.1.9: Final Assessment for unauthorized sue of electricity:
i) Any person not satisfied with the provisional assessment shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment order before the assessing officer within seven days of the order having been served upon him.
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS44 2025:HHC:44126
(ii) Within seven days of submission of the objection(s), the assessing officer will scrutinize the case and if no unauthorized use of electricity is established then after taking the reasons on .
record, the case will be dropped immediately and the person informed accordingly.
(iii) If the assessing officer is still of the view that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, he shall after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the person, pass a final order of assessment specifying the amount of payable within thirty days of the date of service of order of provisional assessment. In such a case the assessing officer will assess the electricity consumption and electricity charges rt as per the procedure given in AnnexureIII.
(iv) The person will be required to deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of receipt of the final order of assessment. The licensee may extend the last date of payment of the assessed amount or allow the payment in installments subject to payment of interest on the unpaid amount for the extended period beyond seven days at the rate of 16 percent per annum compounded every six months.
(v) The person served with the final order of assessment may accept it and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee or may file an appeal as per para 6.1.10.
While dealing with the cases under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 (36 of 2003) as amended up to date for unauthorized use of electricity for adopting means and usages of electricity not authorized by the Board/Distribution Licensee, the following acts and similar acts shall constitute unauthorized use of electricity:
(a) i. Interchanging the phase and neutral wire of electric supply line ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 45 2025:HHC:44126 ii. By disconnecting the incoming/outgoing side neutral wire of energy meter iii. By tilting the energy meter with or without .
MCB iv. By loosening the glass of energy meter provided that the action do not constitute dishonest abs traction of energy. iv.
v. By external use of magnet, high frequency devices or some other method provided that the of action do not constitute dishonest abstraction of energy.
(b) Where the consumer without the permission rt of the Board uses energy for a different category of tariff than that of the category of tariff under which the connection was originally obtained & granted e.g. (1) connection sanctioned in lower tariff and used in higher tariff (ii)change of category of use etc..
(c) Where a metered agriculture consumer through his energy meter connects and installs motor on another bore in addition to existing bore provided further charges at flat rate from that consumer, it is a case of unauthorized use of energy.
d) i. Where without the permission of the Board the consumer extends the Board's supply to any premises or areas other than the authorized premises."
(self emphasis supplied)
46. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that once the compounding has been done by the Electricity Department with accused Satinder Mohan, then directing the accused persons against whom, the charges ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS 46 2025:HHC:44126 have been framed, to face the trial would be nothing, but double jeopardy and thus, case of the prosecution does not .
sustain against them, even for framing the charges.
47. Similarly, there is no substance in Criminal Revision No.220 of 2022, preferred by the State, as the learned trial Court has rightly held that no case is made of out against respondents No.2 to 7, in the said criminal revision. rt
48. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, Criminal Revision Nos.5, 6 and 150 of 2022 are allowed and the petitioners, in these cases are ordered to be discharged from the offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Criminal Revision No.220 of 2022, is dismissed.
49. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in all the petitions, shall also stand disposed of.
( Virender Singh )
December 16, 2025 (ps) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:33:35 :::CIS