https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303555 Conviction for theft of electricity under the Indian Electricity Act was set aside in revision because the prosecution failed to prove the accused's identity, occupation or use of the premises, and the evidence left material gaps in the link between the accused and the alleged theft. The principal witnesses did not support the prosecution version, and there was no adequate direct or circumstantial evidence to cure those deficiencies. Revisional interference was held justified where concurrent findings are unsupported by evidence or are perverse, to prevent manifest illegality and miscarriage of justice. The revision petition was allowed. en-us Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:30:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303555 Conviction for theft of electricity under the Indian Electricity Act was set aside in revision because the prosecution failed to prove the accused's identity, occupation or use of the premises, and the evidence left material gaps in the link between the accused and the alleged theft. The principal witnesses did not support the prosecution version, and there was no adequate direct or circumstantial evidence to cure those deficiencies. Revisional interference was held justified where concurrent findings are unsupported by evidence or are perverse, to prevent manifest illegality and miscarriage of justice. The revision petition was allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303555