Gujarat High Court
Nishith Maganlal Patel (Petition ... vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 656 of 2013
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 657 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== NISHITH MAGANLAL PATEL (petition disposed of as not pressed) & ANR.
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
========================================================== Appearance:
DELETED for the Applicant(s) No. 1MR K S CHANDRANI(6674) for the Applicant(s) No. 2 MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 01/05/2026 COMMON JUDGMENT
1) By way of present revision applications under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), the applicants - accused have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the judgment and orders dated 17.05.2013 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jetpur, in Special (GEBCC) Nos. 51 and 52 of 2012 as well as FIRs registered with GUVNL Police Station, vide C.R.Nos.1039 and 1041 of 2010 for the offence under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:43:50 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
2) It is the case of the prosecution is that, the applicants are the partners of firms namely "Anand Textile Printers" at GIDC, Dhareshwar and "Polite Processors" situated at GIDC, Ankleshwar, Taluka Jetpur, District Rajkot. That on 16.04.2010, raiding team of PGVCL visited the unit of the applicants and made Rojkam and seized two electric meters from the said units in the presence of the applicant No.1 for the alleged theft of electricity. Pursuant to the same, two FIRs came to be filed at GUVNL Police Station, vide C.R.No.1039 and 1041 of 2010 for the offence under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for the theft of electricity.
3) Apropos the FIRs, the applicants approached learned Sessions Court by preferring anticipatory bail, which came to be allowed on condition to deposit the bill amounts by way of cheque. Thereafter, chargesheet came to be filed under Sections 135, 138 and 150 of the Act.
4) The applicants also preferred discharge application/s in Special C.C. No.51 and 52 of 2012 on the ground that there cannot be two FIRs for the same offence and as the total amount of the bills were paid to the PGVCL, which came to be rejected on 17.05.2013. Hence, these revisions have been filed before this court.
5) Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the employees of 'Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited' visited the applicants' units and seized two electricity meters from the same premises; however, for the same alleged offence, two separate FIRs were registered on the same day at GUVNL Police Station being II-1039 of 2010 and II-C.R. No.1041 of 2010 under identical provisions of the Electricity Act, which is unconstitutional and liable to be quashed. It is further contended that applicant No.1 Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:43:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined managed the business affairs of the partnership firm "Polite Processors," whereas applicant Nos.2 and 3 have no role in conducting or functioning of the units and were arraigned as accused merely to exert pressure. The applicants deny their involvement in the alleged theft of electricity, asserting that criminal liability cannot be fastened upon them; that the seizure of the meters occurred in the presence of applicant No.1, and no presumption of knowledge can be attributed to the other applicants who do not even visit the premises and are only nominal partners. It was also argued that the applicants, being laypersons, are unaware of the technical procedures adopted by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited in detecting alleged theft, and since even the testing laboratory and its staff are under the control of the same authority, there exists a likelihood of bias or erroneous findings beyond the comprehension or ability of the applicants to effectively challenge, and therefore, the impugned orders of the learned Sessions Judge and FIRs deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Over and above the above submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Rasipuram Textiles (P) Ltd., reported in 2008 LawSuit (SC) 2422 and this Court in the case of Rajeshkumar Khimjibhai Jakasania & Ors, reported in 2023 LawSuit (Guj.) 750.
6) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - PGVCL has opposed the present revision applications and contended that, this is not a simple case of faulty error in the electric meters. Tampering with the meters was found, MRI data was examined and upon satisfaction of the electricity theft by the applicants, bills came to Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:43:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined be issued to the applicants. Rojakm was also done and accused No.1 has put his signature and CF paramateria is not a ground to discharge the applicants from the offence of theft. He has further submitted that the applicants are the partners of the firms and partnership firm has taken undue advantage and they were only partners of the alleged firm. As tampering with the meters was found, collected sufficient evidence and then chargesheet came to be filed. In view of the above, Mr. Dave submits that, as the same is a question of trial, present revision applications do not deserve any consideration and hence, the same may be dismissed.
He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in Special Criminal Application No.4737/2014 (Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. and has prayed to dismiss the revision applications.
7) Learned APP has opposed the applications and by adopting the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that, the applicants by using external devise have committed theft by tampering with the meters and thereby, committed an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and caused monetary loss and hence, present applications are liable to be dismissed.
8) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that, at the instance of respondent No. 2, complaints under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act was filed against the applicants. After investigation, chargesheets came to be filed alleging that the applicants being partners of the firms namely "Anand Textile Printers" and "Polite Processors" since 1982 and 1992 respectively, and having commercial electricity connections, had tampered with the electric Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:43:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined meters by using external devices or circuit mechanisms. It is alleged that such manipulation prevented the meters from recording actual electricity consumption, resulting in theft amounting to Rs. 30,66,349.46 and Rs. 45,01,594.70, respectively. In this regard, two separate complaints were filed.
9) It further appears that the raiding team of PGVCL visited the premises of the applicants on 16.04.2010, whereas the complaints were lodged on 20.04.2010, i.e., after a delay of four days. Pursuant thereto, the applicants were summoned by the learned Sessions Court in Special (GEB) Criminal Case Nos.51 and 52 of 2012. From the Rojkam, it emerges that average bills were issued and subsequently, paid by the applicants. It is also noted that accused No. 1 Nishith Maganlal Patel expired during the pendency of the revision application, and therefore, the proceedings stood abated against him. A further perusal of the Rojkam indicates that accused No. 1 signed documents in the capacity of owner/proprietor of the factory, and not as a partner of any partnership firm. There is no documentary evidence on record to demonstrate that the proceedings were initiated against the applicants in their capacity as partners of the said firms. Moreover, no material appears to have been collected during the raid to substantiate the existence or role of the partnership firms. All documents prepared at the time of inspection reflect the status of a proprietorship concern, with accused No. 1 signing as proprietor. Subsequently, post facto approval was obtained, wherein the names of partners were introduced. Even in the chargesheet, there is no clear assertion regarding the role of the partnership firms or the manner in which the present applicants actively participated in the alleged offence of electricity theft.
Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:43:50 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
10) Further, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the applicants were partners of the firms, it is noted that a power of attorney had been executed in favour of Nishith Patel. Mere holding of the position of partner does not automatically render a person vicariously liable. To fasten vicarious liability, the prosecution must establish, with cogent material, the active involvement or participation of the accused in the commission of the offence. In absence of such evidence, mere designation or status as a partner is insufficient to attract criminal liability. In this regard, reference is required to be made on Section 149 of the Electricity Act, which reads as under:
"Section 149. (Offences by companies): --- (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of having committed the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of having committed such offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,- (a) "company" means a body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm."
11) Said revision is paramateria with Section 141 of the N.I Act.
Further, section 14A of the EPF Act reads as under:
"14A. Offences by companies.--
(1) If the person committing an offence under this Act, the Scheme or [the [Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme] is a company, every person, who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:43:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-
section shall render any such person liable to any punishment, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under the Act , the Scheme or [the [Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme]] has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director or manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section,-- (a)"company" means any body corporate and includes a firm and other association of individuals; and (b)"director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.] Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 reads as under:
34. Offences by companies.-- (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section--
(a)"company" means a body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b)"director" in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm." At this stage, section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is also relevant to be referred to, which reads as under: "141. Offences by companies. -- (1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:43:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence: Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a)"company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and(b)"director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. "
Section 141 of the NI Act reads as under:-
Section 141- Offences by companies.
(1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence:
[Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:43:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, --
(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm."
12) Hence, merely because present applicants are partners of the firms, the applicants cannot be held vicariously responsible and prosecuted. To connect the accused persons with an offence, complainant must have to show that how and in what manner the present applicants being the partners of the firm and are answerable for the conduct and business of the firms. Herein, in the complaint, nowhere the specific role of the present applicants is alleged and merely their names are mentioned as partners and by virtue of designation the applicants are arraigned as accused in their individual capacity. The applicants are not full time Directors or also not getting any remuneration from the firms and only by virtue of their designation, as a partners, they are arraigned as accused. To make answerable or responsible the Director or members of the firms for the administration of the firms, complainant must have to show that present applicants were responsible for the day to day affairs of the firms. Mere bald statement in the complaint is not enough for proceeding against the applicants.
13) In this regard, I lay my hand on pari materia provision of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua responsibility and prosecution against Directors in case of company, firm or association and reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:43:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89.
14) Even upon reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. Rasipuram Textiles (P) Ltd., reported in 2008 LawSuit (SC) 2422, which deals with vicarious liability of Directors of a company, it is well settled that the complainant must specifically aver and establish that the accused was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. It is incumbent upon the complainant not only to make necessary averments in the complaint but also to substantiate, through material on record, that the person sought to be prosecuted had a direct role in the management and operations of the company. In the absence of such specific averments and in the absence of any material collected during the course of investigation demonstrating the involvement of the present applicants, they cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged offence. Therefore, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 are not acceptable. To that extent, the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to have committed any error in dismissing the discharge application of the accused persons. Even otherwise, assuming that there was an error in the meter supplied by L&T Company, and further assuming that the meters were tampered with by use of an external device, it is noteworthy that the rojkam bears the signature of accused No. 1 alone, who has expired and that too in his capacity as a proprietor. Moreover, the entire amount of the average bills issued by PGVCL has already been paid. On that count also, present applications deserve due consideration.
15) In wake of aforesaid discussion, present revision applications are allowed. Impugned judgment and orders dated 17.05.2013 Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:43:50 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/656/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jetpur, in Special (GEB) Criminal Case Nos.51 and 52 of 2012 as well as FIRs registered with GUVNL Police Station, vide C.R.Nos.1039 and 1041 of 2010 are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:43:50 IST 2026