National

New law not applicable to power thefts committed before its enactment: court

CHENNAI: The lenient and less stringent provisions of the new Electricity Act, 2003, are not applicable to power thefts committed and detected before the Act came into force, the Madras High Court has ruled.

Passing orders on a batch of writ appeals involving industrial power thefts worth lakhs of rupees, a Division Bench of Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice S.R. Singharavelu said: “Since the commission of offence and detection and the commencement of the proceedings took place before the Electricity Act, 2003, came into force, the consumers cannot claim any benefit during the interregnum period of 2003 and 2007.”

The repealed Electricity Supply Act, 1948—under which the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the industrial units entered into power supply contracts—provided for a penalty of twice the tariff rate for power thefts. Demands could be made for a maximum of 12 months. The new Act, however, prescribed lesser tariff rate, and it was “less lenient and less burdensome.”

After a single judge accepted the companies’ demand for tariff revision as per the new structure, the Board chose the present appeal, arguing that since all actions had been initiated prior to the new Act, its provisions would not be applicable to the industrial consumers in question.

Acceding to Additional Advocate-General P.S. Raman’s submissions, the Bench said the industrial consumers dragged the proceedings under some pretext or the other and then claimed the benefits under the new Act. “{-T}{-h}{-e}{-s}{-e} are the matters of theft of electricity worth lakhs of rupees. is the subject matter. If proved, the consumers are liable for punishment under the criminal proceedings initiated by the Department…The tariff rates as on the date of commission of offence alone are applicable. Just for the simple reason that the new Act prescribed lesser tariffs, it cannot be made applicable to the cases of the consumers…”

The judges said electricity generated and distributed was a “material source of the community,” and such thefts would paralyse the entire system.

Noting that the attempts at impairing the purpose of laws should be curbed with an iron hand, the judges set aside the single judge order.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu