Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has held that prosecutions for electricity theft must meet strict standards of proof, as it set aside a 2005 conviction after finding that the raid, seizure and evidence in the case suffered from fundamental legal defects.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das delivered the judgment, ruling that the prosecution had failed to establish the allegation of illegal hooking beyond reasonable doubt.
A Central finding of the court was that State Electricity Board officials who conducted the raid “nowhere disclosed on what basis” they entered the appellant’s premises at Neturia in Purulia district. The court underscored that the legitimacy of a raid forms the foundation of an electricity-theft prosecution and that the absence of any stated reason for choosing the house rendered the inspection itself doubtful.
According to the complaint, the Board’s inspection team, accompanied by Neturia police, conducted a raid on January 20, 2003 and claimed to have detected direct hooking from an LT line, estimating a revenue loss of about Rs 4,000. The meter at the premises had earlier been disconnected on November 26, 2002 for unpaid dues of Rs 2,693. During the inspection, however, the appellant was not present; only his mother was found.
The court highlighted that witnesses could not produce any document or independent confirmation to show that the premises belonged to the appellant. One prosecution witness stated that the house was in the name of the appellant’s deceased father. Another witness said he saw a man consuming electricity illegally but did not identify who the person was, leaving a critical question unanswered.
The seizure process also came under severe scrutiny. The seizure list was not prepared at the spot, it bore no signature of any local witness or the accused, and the items allegedly seized—such as PVC wire and a lamp holder—were neither sealed nor produced before the trial court. No local witness was cited to confirm the disconnection or seizure, despite the raid occurring in broad daylight.
Holding that the prosecution had “manifestly failed” to meet the standard of strict proof required in power-theft charges, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered that the appellant be discharged from all bond conditions.