Supreme Court clarified the evidentiary threshold for criminal liability in alleged meter tampering cases.

The Court reversed the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing that suspicion or approximation cannot substitute for strict proof of dishonest abstraction or tampering. It reiterated that statutory presumptions under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act require substantive evidence of artificial means.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Presumption of theft arises only on strict proof of use of artificial means.

✅ Conjecture and possibilities are insufficient for conviction.

✅ Statutory protections for accused in electricity theft cases.

✅ Upholding fair trial standards in criminal appeals.

Statutes:

* Indian Electricity Act, 1910: Sections 39, 44, 50

* Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 313, 248(1), 452, 378

* Constitution of India: Article 136

#SupremeCourt #ElectricityAct #CriminalLaw