Sanction for Prosecution - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the use of "artificial means" for electricity theft under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which is necessary to invoke the statutory presumption against the consumer. The evidence was deemed insufficient, speculative, and not beyond reasonable doubt to establish offences under Sections 39 or 44. Facts Of The Case: Officials from the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) detected a 36.6% discrepancy between supplied units and meter readings at M/s. Rushi Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. in March 1993. An inspection revealed three holes in the company's meter box. The prosecution alleged that unauthorized wires were inserted through these holes to slow the meter and steal electricity, ca...

The Supreme Court quashed the prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that its continuation after a conclusive settlement order granting immunity from penalty was an abuse of process. The Revenue's action was in blatant disregard of its own binding circulars which mandated prosecution only after penalty confirmation by the ITAT. Facts Of The Case: A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the appellant's residence on 24.04.2016, leading to the seizure of unaccounted cash. Based on this, the Revenue initiated prosecution u/s 276C(1) for the Assessment Year 2017-2018, alleging a wilful attempt to evade tax. The appellant's petition before the High Court to quash these proceedings was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed an...

Tag: Sanction for Prosecution

Evidence Wholly Unreliable: Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Conviction for Power Pilferage

Supreme Court: Prosecution Without Confirmed Penalty is Abuse of Process