Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

36. The question has crept up, as to whether, the proceeding under Section 126 and Section 135 of the Act, 2003 can go simultaneously or in a case where the FIR has been instituted for theft of electricity in view of the provision of Section 135 of the Act, 2003, is there any bar in proceeding by taking aid of Section 126 of the Act, 2003.

37. The said issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, [(2012) 2 SCC 108]. (altogether three judgments).

38. It is evident from the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove that the proceeding under Section 126 and 135 are distinct in nature and will go simultaneously. The reason has been assigned that the provision of Section 126 is being dealt with in a situation where the use of electricity unauthorized, meaning thereby, there is no mens rea, while, in a case of theft of 2025:JHHC:22700-DB electricity, mens rea is there.

42. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further laid down in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Vrs. Appellate Authority and Anr., (supra) has held that if the proceeding has been initiated under Section 126(1), culminated by passing the final assessment under sub-section (5) of Section 126, then, the same is to be given its logical end, i.e., by way of filing an appeal if the party is aggrieved under Section 127 of the Act, 2003. It has been held that that both Section 126 and Section 135 are independent in all respects and provide different kind of liability and consequences. One involves monetary liability (Section 126) whereas the other involves criminal liability (Section 135). The Board, is therefore, at liberty to take recourse to the provisions of Section 126 or/and 135 of the Act against such person/consumer as provided therein in accordance with law, for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs, i.e. paragraphs-10 to 18 of the said judgment need to be referred as under:-

15. Indeed, once the Act is held applicable to the controversy in question, a fortiori, all the provisions of the Act would then be applicable to the case which would obviously include a provision which provides a right of appeal to the appellate authority.
16. In the scheme of the Act, we find that Section 126 of the Act deals with assessment of electricity charges payable by such person (consumer) for unauthorised use of electricity whereas Section 135 deals with the cases of theft of electricity. In other words, once the Board detects the case of unauthorised use of electricity by any consumer, in such event, the Board gets a cause of action to proceed against such person/consumer under Section 126 or/and 135 under the Act. Both Sections 126 and 135 are independent in all respects and provide different kind of liability and consequences. One involves monetary liability (Section 126) whereas the other involves criminal liability (Section 135). The Board is, therefore, at liberty to take recourse to the provisions of Section 126 or/and 135 of the Act against such person/consumer as provided therein in accordance with law.