‘Prima Facie Evidence Warrants Full Examination’: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial for Alleged Electricity Theft

Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, dismissed the criminal revision petition in Rameshwar Ghosh alias Bidhu Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Anr., upholding proceedings against the petitioner for alleged electricity theft under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings on grounds of fabrication and lack of evidence, which the court rejected, directing the matter to proceed to trial.

The case originated from an inspection conducted on December 1, 2010, by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (WBSEDCL) at the petitioner’s premises, resulting in allegations of unauthorized electricity use through a "direct hook" connection. Despite the petitioner’s claim that he was a regular, lawful consumer using electricity only for domestic purposes, officials documented the seizure of a hooking device and copper wiring, accusing him of electricity theft.

Represented by Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury and Mr. Ritoprita Ghosh, the petitioner argued that the inspection report and subsequent FIR were fabricated, pointing out that:

He had no unauthorized devices, such as a submersible pump, at his residence, which was a domestic connection.

The officials demanded a bribe, allegedly threatening to file a theft case upon his refusal.

The seizure list did not conclusively show illegal equipment associated with the alleged theft.

The petitioner thus sought to have the charges dismissed, claiming they were baseless and fabricated to harass him.

Justice Bandyopadhyay dismissed the petition, affirming that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant a full trial under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act. Key points in the court’s analysis included:

Inspection Report and Seizure of Hooking Device: The inspection yielded a “direct hook” connection, evidenced by 20 feet of copper wire and a hooking device seized from the premises. This discovery, noted in the inspection report, established a basis for the charge, making a trial necessary to examine the veracity of the allegations.

Interpretation of Section 135(1)(a): The court emphasized the broad scope of Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, which criminalizes unauthorized tapping or tampering with electricity infrastructure, including any connections that divert electricity without proper authorization. The petitioner’s claims of lawful electricity use, and absence of industrial equipment, were deemed matters to be verified through trial proceedings.

In rejecting the petition, Justice Bandyopadhyay highlighted the need for due process in criminal matters, asserting that disputes over the legitimacy of the electricity use and any potential misconduct by officials would be best assessed at trial. She stated:

“The allegations regarding fabrication and claims of lawful usage of electricity must be thoroughly examined at trial. Only a full inquiry into the evidence can address the truthfulness of these claims.”

Conclusion: Dismissal of Revision Application, Case to Proceed to Trial

In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the criminal revision application (C.R.R. 3457 of 2011), directing the trial court to continue proceedings based on the prima facie findings of unauthorized electricity usage. The court emphasized that if evidence reveals any misconduct, appropriate relief may be granted to the petitioner during trial.

Date of decision: 06/11/2024