MAHAVEER v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Supreme Court of India
2025 INSC 1206
Discusses principles of evidence, statutory interpretation, appellate review, and the application of legal presumptions.
Legal Discussion:
- The Indian Electricity Act, 1910: The judgment discusses Section 39, concerning "Theft of energy", elaborating on the dishonest abstraction, consumption, or use of energy. It highlights that Section 39 creates a fiction whereby such actions are deemed theft under the Penal Code, 1860. The court refers to Satya Narain Prasad v. Bhagwan Ramdas, emphasizing that Section 39 itself doesn't prescribe a sentence but creates an offense by raising a fiction. The judgment also discusses Section 44, "Penalty for interference with meters or licensee's works, and for improper use of energy", stating that the charge under this section rested on shaky grounds. It notes the absence of evidence showing the meter was injured or tampered with, and the lack of a practical exercise by investigators to check the holes and wires. The court concludes that neither Section 39 nor Section 44 could be established against the appellant-convict. The judgment refers to Section 50, regarding whether the complaint was made by a competent person.
- Code of Criminal Procedure: The judgment mentions Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., noting that the accused were acquitted under its provisions by the Trial Court. It also refers to Section 313 Cr.P.C., stating that the statement of the accused was recorded under this section. The judgment refers to Section 378 CrPC, justifying the invocation of powers by the High Court if the trial court had committed a patent error of law. The judgment also refers to Section 452 Cr.P.C., regarding the application of prosecution claiming meter box in question.
- The Constitution of India: The judgment discusses Article 136, stating that the powers of the Supreme Court under this Article do not encompass the reappreciation of the entirety of the record merely because the High Court convicted the appellants for the first time in its appellate jurisdiction. It mentions that the Court has evolved its own limitations on the exercise of powers under Article 136 and reiterated that there shall not ordinarily be an attempt to reappreciate the evidence on record unless the decision(s) under challenge are shown to have committed a manifest error of law or procedure or the conclusion reached is ex facie perverse.
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment refers to the IPC in the context of Section 39 of the Electricity Act, stating that dishonest abstraction of electricity is deemed to be an offense under the Penal Code by virtue of the fiction created under Section 39. It emphasizes that the punishment is not under the Electricity Act itself but under the IPC for theft.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle of presumption in law, particularly in relation to Section 39 of the Electricity Act. It emphasizes that for the presumption against the consumer to take effect, it must be proved that an artificial means or a means not authorized by the licensee had been used in committing the theft. It also discusses the scope of appellate review, stating that reversal of acquittal by the High Court does not automatically call for reappreciation of the entire evidence by the Supreme Court. The judgment also discusses the nature and effect of witness testimony, referencing Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, and categorizing the testimonies in the case as "wholly unreliable".
List of Laws: The Indian Electricity Act, 1910; Code of Criminal Procedure; The Constitution of India; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; General Principles of Law