Misuse of Section 135 of Electricity Act 2003
Junior Engineer (J.E.) Kishan Lal Sharma is at the center of an alleged misuse of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The electricity connection belongs to the holder, Mr. Tarak Nath Yadav S/O Avadhraj Yadav; however, J.E. Kishan Lal Sharma disconnected the electricity supply without collecting payment of the bill. Consequently, this disconnection created the root of the dispute, as the junior engineer subsequently prepared a concocted story targeting the applicant and his younger brother.
Instead, the Department of Electricity is now accusing the connection holder’s younger brothers. J.E. Kishan Lal Sharma has implicated the younger brothers for the theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Rather than disconnecting Tarak Nath Yadav’s connection, J.E. Kishan Lal Sharma — allegedly colluding with him — is instead directing blame towards the younger brothers for theft of electricity.
The electricity bill in Tarak Nath Yadav’s name exceeds ₹4 lakhs, and disconnection is only possible after payment of the bill. However, officials are now claiming that the connection belongs to the younger brothers. Since Tarak Nath has still not deposited the bill, this raises an obvious question: where does that leave his connection?
Key Takeaways
- The article discusses the misuse of section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 by Junior Engineer Kishan Lal Sharma, who disconnected a connection without payment and falsely implicated the complainant’s siblings.
- The grievance, filed by Loknath Yadav, alleges collusion between the junior engineer and the connection holder, Tarak Nath Yadav, to shift blame and financial liability.
- Significant allegations include procedural violations, accusations against non-connection holders, and lack of evidence for claims of theft.
- The article outlines key legal safeguards to prevent misuse of section 135, emphasizing the need for evidence of dishonest intention in theft cases.
- It provides guidance on what to do if facing a false case, including legal recourse options like challenging FIRs and approaching special courts.
Grievance Update: Allegations of Collusion and False Implication Under Section 135 in the Mirzapur Electricity Dispute
Officials have since updated the grievance filed about an electricity connection in Mirzapur with serious new allegations. The complainant, Mr. Loknath Yadav, now claims that the issue is not merely one of harassment. Rather, he says it involves collusion between the electricity department official and the defaulting connection holder, who are allegedly working together to falsely implicate innocent family members.
Grievance Quick View
- Grievance Registration Number:
GOVUP/E/2024/0095090 - Complainant Name: Loknath Yadav
- Date of Receipt: 24/12/2024
- Concerned Department: Government of Uttar Pradesh
Background: The Disputed Connection and Outstanding Bill
The dispute primarily centers on an electricity connection, particularly due to a massive outstanding bill of over ₹5 lakhs.
Original Connection Details:
- Account Holder: Tarak Nath Yadav
- Account Number:
6319562000 - Address: Chhanbey Awadh Raj Yadav, Dugauli, UP, IND
- Mobile Number:
9808888888
The department had previously offered a settlement scheme for the original outstanding amount of ₹4,43,138. However, the core of the grievance has now shifted: it is no longer about the bill itself, but instead concerns the alleged actions taken by the department.
Updated and Rectified Allegations and section 135 of electricity act
Mr. Loknath Yadav has since clarified his complaint, providing a detailed account of the events that transpired. He accuses Junior Engineer (JE) Kishan Lal Sharma of creating a “concocted story” with the apparent intention of shielding the actual defaulter from any repercussions. Consequently, this act raises serious questions about the investigation and the motives behind the actions of JE Sharma. Specifically, Mr. Yadav claims that investigators have overlooked crucial evidence, which suggests a deliberate effort to mislead those involved in the inquiry. Moreover, he insists that transparency is paramount in addressing this issue, as it not only affects individual accountability but also undermines public trust in the department’s operations.
The Four Key Allegations Under Section 135
- Allegation of Collusion: The complainant alleges that JE Kishan Lal Sharma is colluding with the connection holder, Tarak Nath Yadav, who is also the complainant’s brother. Instead of pursuing Tarak Nath for the
₹5 lakh+outstanding bill, the JE is allegedly protecting him. - False Implication Under Electricity Act, 2003: A new complaint focuses on the JE’s actions, since the JE is allegedly framing the younger brothers. Officials are accusing Loknath Yadav and Kedar Nath Yadav of electricity theft, and this accusation falls under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In other words, it appears to be a tactic to shift blame — specifically, to divert financial liability away from the original account holder.
- Contradictory Claims by the Department: The complainant points out a significant contradiction: the department is now claiming that the connection belongs to the younger brothers; consequently, officials are using this claim to justify the theft charges. Nonetheless, the multi-lakh-rupee bill remains officially registered in the name of Tarak Nath Yadav.
- Questioning the Connection’s Status: This raises a critical question — if Tarak Nath Yadav has not paid his massive bill, then why is his connection still active, given that disconnection is the standard procedure? As the complainant puts it, “where is the connection of Tarak Nath Yadav?” Meanwhile, the JE is allegedly allowing the connection to continue illegally while framing others for theft from the same line.
Current Status and Official Escalation
The status of the grievance remains unchanged at this time, though officials have escalated it for review.
- Current Status: Grievance received
- Date of Action: 24/12/2024
- Officer Assigned: Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary)
- Organisation: Uttar Pradesh Government
- Contact Address: Chief Minister Secretariat, Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow
- Email Address:
arvind.12574@gov.in - Contact Number:
05222226350
Contact Information of Complainant
- Name: Loknath Yadav S/O Avadh Raj Yadav
- Address: Village and Post – Dugauli, Police Station – Jigna, Powerhouse – Jigna, District – Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh.
- Mobile Number:
7518521539
Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is a powerful tool designed to combat power theft. However, its stringent nature — including a presumption of guilt and its classification as a cognizable and non-bailable offense — makes it susceptible to misuse. Below is an analysis of how officials often misuse this section, the legal safeguards in place, and the remedies available to you.
Common Ways Section 135 Is Misused
- Procedural Violations: Consequently, authorities often disconnect supply immediately without providing the mandatory “provisional assessment” or a chance to be heard, which is essential even in theft cases.
- Targeting Non-Connection Holders: Officials sometimes register cases against tenants or neighbors rather than the actual registered consumer, often to exert pressure or settle personal scores.
- False Tampering Allegations: Consequently, utility companies may inaccurately attribute natural wear and tear, burnt terminals, or faulty meters to intentional “meter tampering” to raise high-value “theft bills.”
- Inaccurate Load Assessment: Meanwhile, inspection teams may exaggerate the “connected load” at the time of the raid to inflate the financial penalty, which is usually calculated as 3x the financial gain.
- Lack of Evidence: Often, officials file an FIR based solely on a decrease in average consumption; however, this is done without any physical proof of a bypass or tampered seal.
Key Legal Safeguards Under Section 135
Courts have established specific guidelines to prevent arbitrary harassment under this section:
| Feature | Legal Requirement / Safeguard |
|---|---|
| Burden of Proof | The prosecution must prove “dishonest intention.” Mere lower consumption or a broken seal is not enough for a conviction without physical evidence of theft. |
| Search & Seizure | Officials must follow the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Independent witnesses must sign a “Panchanama” (witness report), and officials must give a copy to the occupant. |
| Compounding | The offense is compoundable (Section 152), so you can settle the matter by paying a prescribed fee, which acts as an acquittal and stops criminal proceedings. |
| Civil vs Criminal | The Special Court (Section 153) is the only authority that can determine final civil liability (the actual amount owed) in a theft case. |
What to Do If You Face a False Section 135 Case
If you believe officials are misusing Section 135 against you, consider these steps:
- Pay Under Protest: To restore power quickly, you can pay the assessed amount “under protest.” This allows you to challenge the bill later without an immediate loss of electricity.
- Challenge the FIR: You can file a petition in the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR if it is clearly malicious or lacks evidence.
- Approach the Special Court: Once officials file an FIR, jurisdiction shifts to the Special Electricity Court, where you can contest the evidence and the assessment amount.
- Note: Consumer Forums generally do not have jurisdiction over Section 135 cases.
- Ombudsman/Internal Grievance: If the issue is procedural (like a wrong meter reading or billing error not amounting to theft), you can instead approach the Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC) of the utility.
Overall, to help you research and defend against the misuse of Section 135, here are the key legal resources, official documents, and landmark judgments that define your rights.
1. Official Act & Procedural Guidelines on Section 135
- India Code – Section 135: The official text of the Electricity Act, 2003, detailing what constitutes theft and the mandatory procedures for search and seizure.
- Ministry of Power Clarification: A critical circular clarifying the difference between “Unauthorized Use” (Section 126) and “Theft” (Section 135), emphasizing that theft requires proof of dishonest intention.
2. Landmark Judgments on Section 135 Misuse & Quashing
- Saurabh Agrawal vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court): A key judgment stating that mere broken seals do not constitute theft. Instead, the court ruled that without a technical report from the meter manufacturer, the charge of theft under Section 135 cannot be sustained.
- Mukesh Chand vs. State (NCT of Delhi): Discusses the limits of quashing an FIR for theft, clarifying that while Section 482 (quashing) exists as an option, courts nonetheless remain strict when actual evidence of energy loss is present.
- M/S Mohit Paper Mills Ltd. vs. PVVNL: Discusses the technical aspects of MRI (Meter Reading Instrument) data and why officials must share it with the consumer to ensure transparency.
3. Key Defensive Sections Against Section 135 Misuse
| Section | Link / Resource | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Section 152 | Compounding of Offences | How to settle the case by paying a fee to avoid a criminal record. |
| Section 154 | Powers of Special Court | Explains that only a Special Court can determine the final civil liability (the actual money owed). |
| Section 127 | Appellate Authority | Where to appeal if your case is wrongly classified as theft instead of unauthorized use. |
4. Search Portal for More Section 135 Cases
If you need to find cases specific to your state (e.g., against Reliance Energy, TATA Power, or State Boards), use the Indian Kanoon search portal:
Would you like me to find the specific “Electricity Supply Code” for your state? (Each state has different rules on how an inspection must be conducted.)
Executive Engineer EDD II Mirzapur did not provide any information to Kamlesh Singh concerning F.I.R. registered under section 135
📄 Docexen1 (PDF) F.I.R. registered under section 135
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.