Legal Review and Analysis of Mahaveer vs State of Maharashtra & Anr 2025 INSC 1206

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Mahaveer vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1206
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Date of Decision: October 8, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following provisions from the Indian Electricity Act, 1910:

• Section 39: Theft of Energy - This section defines the offence of dishonestly abstracting, consuming, or using energy and includes a legal presumption against the consumer if unauthorized "artificial means" for theft are proven to exist.

• Section 44: Penalty for Interference with Meters or Licensee's Works, and for Improper Use of Energy - This section penalizes specific acts like maliciously injuring, fraudulently altering, or wilfully preventing a meter from duly registering. It also contains a similar presumption clause if artificial means are found and the meter is under the consumer's control.

3. Basic Judgment Details

This criminal appeal was filed by the convict, Mahaveer, a Director of M/s. Rushi Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., challenging the High Court's judgment that reversed his acquittal.

• Original Trial Court: The Illrd Jr. Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, acquitted the accused.

• High Court: The Single Judge of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) convicted the appellant under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

• Supreme Court: Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court heard the appeal against the High Court's conviction order.

4. Core Principle and In-Depth Analysis of the Judgment

The core issue addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's acquittal and convicting the appellant for theft of electricity and tampering with the meter, based on the evidence presented.

A. The Legal Framework and Standard of Proof

The Supreme Court began by reiterating the settled legal principles governing appeals against acquittal and the scope of its own powers under Article 136 of the Constitution. Citing Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2021), the Court emphasized that it does not ordinarily re-appreciate evidence in appeals against a conviction imposed by a High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. However, an exception is made where the decision under challenge suffers from a "manifest error of law or procedure" or the conclusion is "ex facie perverse."

The Court then delved into the essence of Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act, 1910. It underscored that the presumptions against the consumer under these sections are not automatic. For the presumption under Section 39 to apply, the prosecution must first prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of "artificial means or means not authorised by the licensee" for the abstraction of energy. Only after this foundational fact is established does the burden shift to the accused to rebut the presumption.

B. Analysis of Prosecution Evidence and Its Deficiencies

The Supreme Court conducted a meticulous analysis of the testimonies of the five prosecution witnesses (PWs) and found the entire case to be built on conjecture, not concrete proof.

• PW-1 (Shankarrao, Panch Witness): Admitted he had no personal knowledge of the events and merely signed a document written by others without understanding its contents. His inference of theft was based on what he was shown, without independent confirmation.

• PW-2 (Balwant, Dy. Executive Engineer): Crucially admitted in cross-examination that his statements regarding less recording of energy were based on "guesswork and nothing specific." He also hinted at being pressured by his superiors.

• PW-3 (The Complainant): Conceded that the MSEB officials did not verify the actual possibility of theft through the holes and that their conclusions were "entirely based upon the inference only."

• PW-4 (Meter Testing Official): Stated that his suspicion of theft was due to the existence of the three holes. He admitted to using a "procedure of elimination" among four consumers to conclude that the losses were due to the holes in the appellant's meter box.

• PW-5 (Superintending Engineer): Admitted that the existence of the three holes was the sole basis for charging the accused with pilferage.

The Court concluded that the testimonies were replete with estimations, presumptions, and possibilities, falling into the category of "wholly unreliable" evidence as explained in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (1957). Since the prosecution failed to definitively prove the use of "artificial means," the legal presumption under Section 39 was never triggered.

C. Application to the Specific Charges

• On Section 39 (Theft of Energy): The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the actus reus of dishonest abstraction or consumption. The reduction in discrepancy after plugging the holes was, at best, circumstantial evidence, but it was not corroborated by direct evidence proving that the appellant had used those holes for theft. The core ingredient of the offence was not established.

• On Section 44 (Interference with Meter): The Court found this charge equally unsubstantiated. There was no evidence to show who made the holes, when they were made, or that they were not present at the time of the meter's installation. No witness saw the appellant or anyone from the company tampering with the meter. The Court emphasized that in the face of "too many open possibilities," criminal liability cannot be fixed.

5. Final Outcome of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appellant, Mahaveer, was acquitted of all charges under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. His bail bonds were discharged.

Supreme Court's Direction: The conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court were quashed. The Court restored the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) Based on the Judgment

1. In the case of Mahaveer vs State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant primarily because?
A) The appellant was not a Director of the company at the time of the offence.
B) The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by an incompetent person.
C) The prosecution evidence was based on conjecture and failed to prove the use of "artificial means" for theft.
D) The meter was not under the custody and control of the appellant.

C) The prosecution evidence was based on conjecture and failed to prove the use of "artificial means" for theft.

2. Regarding the presumption under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Supreme Court held that?
A) It is automatically applied as soon as a discrepancy in meter reading is found.
B) It can be invoked even if the evidence of theft is based solely on the opinion of the investigating officer.
C) It is not automatic and can only be invoked after the prosecution proves the existence of unauthorized "artificial means."
D) It shifts the entire burden of proof onto the accused from the very beginning of the trial.

C) It is not automatic and can only be invoked after the prosecution proves the existence of unauthorized "artificial means."