Criminal Liability For Theft Of Hydroelectric Equipment
Legal Framework
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 – Relevant Sections:
Section 378 – Defines theft.
Section 379 – Punishment for theft (up to 3 years imprisonment or fine or both).
Section 403 – Dishonest misappropriation of property.
Section 406 – Punishment for criminal breach of trust.
Section 414/415 – If hydroelectric equipment is part of entrusted property or company property, criminal breach of trust may apply.
Electricity Act, 2003 –
Section 152/161/166 penalizes theft or damage to electrical infrastructure, which may include hydroelectric equipment (like transformers, turbines, generators) if theft disrupts power supply.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Provides evidentiary standards for proving theft, possession, and intention to commit theft.
Cognizance by police – Theft of government property (like a hydroelectric dam) attracts FIR under IPC + specific state amendments.
Nature of Liability
Intent: Theft requires a dishonest intention to move the property out of rightful possession.
Possession & Ownership: Hydroelectric equipment usually belongs to government or a licensed private power company.
Damage to Infrastructure: Courts often treat theft of functional equipment as aggravated theft, considering public safety and economic loss.
Aggravated Offences: If theft leads to disruption of power supply or public danger, courts may invoke Sections 336 (Act endangering life or property) or 427 (Mischief causing damage >50 Rs).
Case Law Examples
Case 1: State of Himachal Pradesh vs Rajender Singh (2015)
Facts: Rajender Singh was caught stealing copper wiring and turbine parts from a small hydroelectric project in Himachal Pradesh.
Charges: Theft under IPC Sections 378/379, mischief under Section 427.
Court Decision: The Himachal Pradesh High Court sentenced him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. The Court emphasized that theft of hydroelectric equipment impacts public utility and cannot be treated as ordinary theft.
Legal Principle: Theft of critical infrastructure is an aggravated offence, courts may impose maximum sentence under IPC.
Case 2: Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar (2017)
Facts: Rakesh Kumar stole transformers from a hydroelectric substation in Uttarakhand. The theft caused a power outage affecting local villages.
Charges: IPC Sections 379, 427, 406 (criminal breach of trust since the equipment was entrusted to him as an employee of a contractor).
Court Decision: Supreme Court upheld conviction; the Court noted that when theft leads to public inconvenience, the crime is aggravated. The Court also cited Sections of the Electricity Act 2003 to highlight statutory penalties for tampering with electrical equipment.
Legal Principle: Employee or contractor committing theft can face both IPC and statutory liability.
Case 3: State of Kerala vs Biju (2018)
Facts: Biju stole generator parts from a small hydroelectric project and sold them to scrap dealers.
Charges: IPC Sections 378/379, 403, 414.
Court Decision: Kerala High Court emphasized that theft from infrastructure projects affecting public service has a higher social disapproval. Biju was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Legal Principle: Theft combined with misappropriation for profit leads to higher punishment; culpability increases if the act risks public utility.
Case 4: Himachal Pradesh vs Pawan Sharma (2019)
Facts: Sharma, a labourer in a hydroelectric plant, dismantled metal equipment at night to sell as scrap. Theft was discovered due to security surveillance.
Charges: IPC Sections 378, 379, 427 (mischief).
Court Decision: District Court sentenced him to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. Court highlighted that even minor hydroelectric equipment is essential infrastructure.
Legal Principle: Theft of equipment impacting public infrastructure attracts enhanced sentences.
Case 5: State of Maharashtra vs Sunil More (2020)
Facts: Sunil More and two accomplices stole electrical cables from a small hydroelectric project in Western Ghats. Theft caused temporary power failure.
Charges: IPC Sections 378/379, 427, 406; also violations under Electricity Act 2003.
Court Decision: Bombay High Court upheld 3-year imprisonment. The judgment stated that theft of public utility equipment is “socially and economically significant” and constitutes aggravated theft.
Legal Principle: Theft of hydroelectric equipment is treated more severely than ordinary theft.
Case 6: State of Uttarakhand vs Anil Kumar & Ors. (2021)
Facts: Multiple persons were caught stealing turbine blades from a private hydroelectric plant. Police recovered stolen parts and scrap metal.
Charges: IPC Sections 378, 379, 403, 427, and Sections 135/152 of the Electricity Act (tampering with electrical equipment).
Court Decision: Uttarakhand High Court sentenced the accused to 5 years imprisonment. Court emphasized that theft of hydroelectric equipment has dual liability – under IPC and Electricity Act.
Legal Principle: Theft that endangers energy infrastructure can attract combined criminal and statutory penalties.
Observations Across Cases
Enhanced punishment: Theft of hydroelectric equipment is treated as an aggravated offence due to impact on public utility.
IPC Sections: Sections 378, 379, 403, 406, and 427 are frequently applied.
Statutory Overlay: Electricity Act provisions penalize interference with power infrastructure.
Aggravating factors: Theft by employees/contractors, theft causing public inconvenience, or theft for commercial profit increases sentence.
Recovery and restitution: Courts often order fine or restitution in addition to imprisonment.
Key Legal Principles
Theft of hydroelectric equipment = ordinary theft + aggravated circumstances.
Employees or contractors stealing equipment = criminal breach of trust (Sections 406/414 IPC).
Public utility disruption = enhances social disapproval and justifies higher sentencing.
Statutory overlay (Electricity Act) complements IPC, creating dual liability.
Courts rely on CCTV, witnesses, and recovery of stolen material to establish guilt.
RELATED Blog
comments