Electricity Act | Minimum Sentence Under S.135 Can't Be Less Than Three Times The Financial Gain: Karnataka High Court

Mr. B Usman Beary ("Accused/Respondent") had committed theft of electricity and was convicted by the Special Court under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Special Court penalized the Accused with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under each Section and also directed him to pay the back billed amount of Rs. 36,063/-.

The State Government ("Appellant") challenged the Special Court's order before the High Court. The Appellant contended that the minimum sentence for the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of theft of electricity in the event of the first conviction, as provided under Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act. Since the Special Court has imposed a sentence less than the minimum sentence, therefore, it requires it to be enhanced, it was argued.

The Accused contended that the sentence imposed by the Special Court is adequate and he has already paid the back billed amount of Rs. 36,063/-.

HIGH COURT VERDICT

The Court noted that as per Proviso (i) of Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, the fine imposed on the first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity. The financial gain on the part of the Accused by theft of electricity is required to be ascertained from the evidence on record.

On perusal of the records, the Bench concluded that the back billing amount of Rs.36,063/- has been arrived on the basis of average consumption by the Accused. The back billing amount is the financial gain of the Accused by committing the theft of electricity.

Accordingly, the Court has held, “The financial gain by this respondent – accused by the said offence of theft of electricity is Rs.36,063. Therefore, the minimum fine is three times the said amount of Rs.36,063/- which comes to Rs.1,08,189.”

The Bench concluded that the sentence imposed by the Special Court under Section 135 of the Electricity Act is less than the minimum sentence and it is not proper. The appeal has been allowed and the fine has been enhanced by the Court. 

Case Title: State By PI MESCON v B Usman Beary

Case No: Criminal Appeal 1128/2011

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 305

Counsel for Appellant: Sri Renukaradhya R D, HCGP

Counsel for Respondent: Sri Lingaraj