Electricity Theft Under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003
An advocate must distinguish between 'unauthorised use of electricity' under Section 126 and 'theft of electricity' under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 when a consumer's meter is found tampered. The former is a civil liability for using electricity in an unauthorised manner without any dishonest abstraction, while the latter is a criminal offence involving dishonest abstraction, consumption, or use of electricity by tampering with meters or other means. The licensee's inspection, the raising of an assessment bill, and the disconnection of supply trigger questions about the correct statutory procedure and the forum for challenge.
Courts examine whether the inspection and assessment strictly followed the statutory procedure and whether the facts disclose a prima facie case of dishonest abstraction to sustain a criminal complaint. The listed cases do not directly interpret Section 135 or Section 126, but they establish the principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings and the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, which become relevant when an accused challenges an FIR for electricity theft. In B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, the Supreme Court laid down that criminal proceedings can be quashed to secure the ends of justice, while Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. systematised the limits of that power.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.
2003 INSC 179Supreme Court · 2003cited 11,973 times
The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings, FIR, or complaint in matrimonial disputes even for non-compoundable offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC.…
- 2
Bhagwan Dass v. State(nct) of Delhi
2011 INSC 368Supreme Court · 2011cited 11,233 times
The conviction is upheld. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including motive, unnatural conduct of the appellant in not informing the police…
- 3
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr.
2014 INSC 463Supreme Court · 2014cited 10,849 times
1. Section 41 CrPC is a mandatory checklist, not a formality: for offences carrying up to seven years, arrest requires (i) reasonable complaint/credible information/reasonable suspicion of a cognizable offence and (ii)…
- 4
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
2022 INSC 690Supreme Court · 2022cited 9,001 times
Non-compliance with ss. 41 and 41A CrPC entitles an accused to bail as a right; these provisions are facets of Art. 21. The right to default bail under s. 167(2) is absolute and indefeasible and applies equally under…
- 5
M/S Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc
2025 INSC 804Supreme Court · 2025cited 8,155 times
A complainant under s. 138 NI Act is a "victim" within s. 2(wa) CrPC because the dishonour of a cheque causes direct economic loss and injury. Such a complainant-victim has a right to appeal against an order of…
- 6
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another
2012 INSC 419Supreme Court · 2012cited 7,921 times
The inherent power of the High Court under s. 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the power of compounding under s. 320; s. 320 does not limit or restrict s. 482. The High Court may quash…
- 7
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr
2008 INSC 948Supreme Court · 2008cited 6,710 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Court held that, on an overall view of the facts and keeping in mind the compromise decree and the principle in B.S.…
- 8
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors.
2006 INSC 216Supreme Court · 2006cited 6,553 times
The appeal was disposed of in favour of the State. The Supreme Court held that there is no fundamental right to regularization or permanent absorption for employees engaged on daily wages, temporarily, or…
- 9
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.
2017 INSC 1003Supreme Court · 2017cited 5,495 times
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR. The Court restated and systematised ten principles governing Section 482 jurisdiction, emphasising that the power to quash on…
- 10
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors.
2007 INSC 1243Supreme Court · 2007cited 3,669 times
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that an aggrieved person has no right to insist on investigation by a particular agency like the CBI; he can only claim a proper investigation. The Court elaborated on…
- 11
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab
2008 INSC 410Supreme Court · 2008cited 3,224 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and all connected proceedings. The Court held that the dispute was purely personal, arising from business dealings, with no element of public policy. In such…
- 12
State of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another etc. etc.
1992 INSC 357Supreme Court · 1992cited 2,700 times
The Court dismissed the contempt petition and interlocutory applications. The statement of fact in a newspaper report is hearsay and inadmissible without proof by evidence aliunde. The applicant failed to discharge the…
Frequently asked questions
What is the legal distinction between unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 and theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003?
Unauthorised use under Section 126 covers situations where electricity is used without permission or in a manner not authorised, attracting a civil assessment of charges. Theft under Section 135 requires a dishonest intention to abstract, consume, or use electricity, typically evidenced by meter tampering or direct tapping, and constitutes a criminal offence. The presence or absence of dishonest intention is the key differentiator.
Can an FIR for electricity theft under Section 135 be quashed by the High Court?
Yes, the High Court can quash an FIR for electricity theft under its inherent powers, but only in limited circumstances. As held in State of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another etc. etc., quashing is permissible if the allegations do not prima facie constitute the offence or if the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide. The principles in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. further clarify that economic offences involving the public exchequer are not to be quashed merely on the basis of a private compromise.
What is the procedure for assessment when a meter is found tampered during an inspection?
The licensee must conduct the inspection in the presence of the consumer or their representative and prepare a detailed inspection report. A provisional assessment order is then issued, giving the consumer an opportunity to file objections and be heard before a final assessment is made. The assessment must be based on the method and rates prescribed under the Electricity Act and the applicable tariff regulations.
Does the Special Court under the Electricity Act have exclusive jurisdiction over offences of electricity theft?
The Special Court constituted under the Electricity Act has exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under Section 135. A regular criminal court cannot take cognizance of such offences. The Special Court also has the power to determine the civil liability against a consumer in terms of money for theft of electricity, though this does not bar the licensee from raising a separate civil assessment under Section 126 for unauthorised use.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on criminal law & evidence
- Quashing Section 498A IPC FIR for General and Omnibus Allegations
- Dowry Death under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B Evidence Act
- Dying Declaration as Sole Basis of Conviction Under Section 32 Evidence Act
- Conviction on Circumstantial Evidence
- Section 138 NI Act — Proving the Cheque-Bounce Complaint
- Section 138 NI Act — Defences of the Accused
- Compounding of Cheque-Bounce Offences Under Section 147 NI Act
- Sexual Harassment at Workplace (POSH Act) Inquiry and Natural Justice