{"id":589,"date":"2020-04-23T10:30:03","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T10:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=589"},"modified":"2021-01-17T04:32:13","modified_gmt":"2021-01-17T04:32:13","slug":"can-only-tampering-of-electric-meter-be-used-as-an-evidence-against-the-accused-in-order-hold-him-liable-under-section-39-and-section-44-of-the-indian-electric-act-1910","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/can-only-tampering-of-electric-meter-be-used-as-an-evidence-against-the-accused-in-order-hold-him-liable-under-section-39-and-section-44-of-the-indian-electric-act-1910\/","title":{"rendered":"Can only tampering of electric meter be used as an evidence against the accused, in order hold him liable under Section 39 and Section 44 of the Indian Electric Act, 1910"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Falgu Mukati | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 10th February 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n

State of Maharashtra vs Girish Shankarlal Ostawal and Dilip Shankarlal Ostawal, Criminal Appeal NO.1139 OF 2003<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Matter<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this case the two accused of the offence punishable under Section 39 (Theft of energy) and Section 44 (Penalty for interference with meters or licensees work and for improper use of energy) of the Indian Electric Act, 1910. The Special Drive of Vigilance and Security Directorate of MSEB Head office, Mumbai, conducted a check on electrical instalment at Malegaon. Deputy Executive Engineer along with a flying squad came to a plastic pipe factory to detect theft of energy. It inspected the meter of the plastic pipe factory. The sanction load was 40 H.P. The complainant doubted sticker paper seal on the meter and therefore asked the local office to send him a sample sticker seal. After comparing both the seals the complainant found that all the four seals were fictitious. The connected load was 56.38 H.P, more than the sanctioned load of 40 H.P. The meter was intermittently working. The bill was very less as compared to the connected load. The consumer had interfered with the meter reading by tampering the meter. It had thus committed a theft of energy by tampering with the electric meter of 257766 units worth Rs 13,59,591. Thus, a complaint was filed against the accused.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Appellant\u2019s Contention<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n