A High Court has upheld a conviction under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorised use of electricity, rejecting a commercial consumer's defence that a meter bypass arrangement discovered during a surprise inspection had been installed by an unknown third party without the consumer's knowledge, and that the consumer itself was an unwitting victim rather than a participant.
The Court noted that Section 135 creates a presumption, once unauthorised use is established on inspection, that the consumer in occupation and control of the premises is responsible for it, and that displacing this presumption requires more than a bare denial. It requires the consumer to affirmatively explain, with credible evidence, how an unauthorised connection could have existed on its premises, consuming power for its own commercial benefit, without its knowledge over an extended period.
The consumer had also argued that the assessment of the resulting compounding and compensation amount, calculated under the applicable state's electricity supply code based on connected load and the estimated period of unauthorised use, was excessive and not properly reasoned. The Court found the discom's computation methodology to be consistent with the supply code's prescribed formula and declined to interfere with the quantum, while noting that a consumer disputing the computation should raise specific, itemised objections to the methodology rather than a general claim of excessiveness.
The ruling reaffirms that Section 135's presumption of consumer responsibility for unauthorised use found on inspected premises is not easily displaced, and that commercial consumers should treat any irregularity discovered at their premises, however implausibly attributed to a third party, as requiring an immediate, well-documented response rather than a bare denial at the prosecution stage.