Delhi District Court
Through: Authorized Officer vs . on 30 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS REKHA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT)
ELECTRICITY, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,
DELHI
CC No.317/10
New case No.326770/16
U/s 135/138/150 of Electricity Act, 2003
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.,
Having its Registered office at:
Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110032.
Through: Authorized Officer
Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, A.M.(Legal) ........Complainant Company
Vs.
1) Mohd. Sayum @ Sayumuddin (User) ..........Accused no.1
2) Mohd. Asgar (R/C) .........Accused no.2
(proceedings have been dropped vide order
dated 23.01.2011.
Address: 16/1244/1-E, Khalsa Nagar,
Karol Bagh, Bapa Nagar, Delhi-110005
Date of Institution : 02.03.2010
Date of Judgment : 30.07.2018
Final Order : Acquitted.
BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 1
JUDGEMENT
1). The complainant company i.e. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (in short BYPL) has filed the present complaint case under Section 135/138/150/151 Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') against the accused praying that accused be summoned, tried and punished as per law and for determining the civil liability of the accused.
2). Brief facts of the case are that as per direction of DGM (Enf-I) and ESD report, an inspection was carried out at premises bearing no. 16/1244/1-E, Khalsa Nagar, Karol Bagh, Bapa Nagar, Delhi- 110005 (hereinafter referred as suit property) in respect of K. No.114143091031 (new) 214100122237T (old) & meter no.23502715 (hereinafter referred as subject meter) on 27.05.2009 at about 01:45 pm PM by the joint enforcement team of complainant company comprising of Sh. Ashok Kumar (Sr. Manager), Sh. Himanshu Kumar (DET), Sh.Naushad Khan (LM) & Sh. Sanjay Kumar in the presence of the consumer/ representative BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 2 at site who associated to the joint team throughout the inspection proceeding but with malafide intentions, refused to sign the inspection report and did not allow to paste the same at his premises. Accordingly, the remarks have been mentioned at the bottom of inspection report. It is also stated that the subject connection has been sanctioned in favour of Mohd. Asgar Ali (accused no. 2) but the connection was found being used by Mohd. Sayum (accused no. 1 herein). It is stated that at the time of inspection a single phase meter no.23502715 found existed at site. Meter date & time found disturbed/ mismatched with the current date and time and real time clock was failed i.e. date and time showing in the meter were 08.09.14 & 10:20:06 whereas actual date and time were 27.05.09 & 01:45:00 which showed consumer/ accused has applied ESD tool to disturb the recorded actual consumption of the meter. It is stated that during the course of the inspection, the connected load of the premises was found 13.592 KW under non-domestic category against the sanctioned load of 7.00 KW non-domestic category. It is stated that necessary BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 3 photography & videography of connected load was taken by inspection team. It is stated that tampered meter has been seized as per seizure memo vide no.BY-SM-OA-002146 and meter sent to lab for further testing. It is stated that electricity supply was restored through new meter no.22865911 by MMG department. It is also stated that inspection report vide no. BY-IR-OA-002139, load report No.BY-LR-OA-002172, meter report No. BY-MD-OA- 003368 dated 27.05.2009 were prepared at site on the basis of factual position. It is also stated that the load was inadvertently mentioned as 7.592 KW/NX, however, at the time of inspection the exact connected load was 13.592 KW/NX. It is stated that meter Testing Laboratory has observed in its report vide no. BYTR/9887 dated 07.07.2009 that extra soldering spot found at 12V AC circuit on printed circuit board of the meter. Meter dates found disturbed and lab conclusively established that meter found tampered. It is stated that the show cause notice for DAE issued by Sh. Sarjan Mangal-Assessing Officer (Enf-II) was sent to accused vide letter dated 10.06.2009 requesting consumer/accused to attend the BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 4 personal hearing at 10:30 to 12:30 on 09.07.2009. Accordingly, accused had submitted a written statement in which he had denied any indulgence in meter tampering. It is stated that on the basis of material available before the concerned officer and after considering the submission of accused, a detailed speaking order has been passed on 02.12.2009 by Sh. Srajan Mangal-Assessing Officer (Enf-II), however due to some inadvertent typographical mistake occurred in the speaking order, hence, a revised speaking order was issued on 21.01.2010 and the copy of the speaking order was sent to accused. It is stated that the average consumption pattern as per computer module works out to be 32.66% of the assessed consumption, which is much less than the prescribed limit of DERC, should not be less than 75% of the assessed consumption, as per clause-52 (ix), chapter VII of DERC Guidelines. It is stated that the complainant company has also raised the theft assessment bill in the sum of Rs.2,80,393/- against the accused for DAE/ meter tampering which the accused persons are liable to pay but has not been paid. In given fact and BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 5 circumstances of the case, present complaint case has been filed.
3). Thereafter, the complainant company led the pre summoning evidence. Vide order dt. 08.10.2010, accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the offence alleged against him.
4). It is also to note here that vide order dated 23.01.2011, proceedings against the the accused no. 2-Mohd. Asgar Ali had been dropped.
5) After that vide order dated 03.03.2011, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C., had been served upon the accused for the offence punishable u/s 135/138/151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6). In this case, the complainant company has examined five witnesses, so as to prove its case, namely, PW1 Sh.Ashok Kumar-DGM, PW2 Sh.Himanshu Kumar-DET, PW3 Sh. Rajeev BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 6 Ranjan (AR of the complainant company), PW4 Sh.Srajan Mangal-Sr.Manager and PW5 Sh.Prasenjit-Asstt. Manager. It is also to note here that perusal of file shows that examination of PW1-Sh. Ashok Kumar-DGM remained incomplete as examination in chief of PW1-Sh. Ashok Kumar was completed on 11.10.2012 and his cross-examination was deferred and later on, complainant company failed to produce the PW1 for cross-examination despite several opportunities given and vide order dated 15.02.2018, CE of the complainant company stands closed.
7). As per testimony of PW-1 Sh.Ashok Kumar- DGM testified that in the year 2009, he was posted as a Sr. Manager at Gandhi Market, Enforcement department, BYPL. It is testified by PW1 that on 27.5.09 at about 13.45 pm he went at the subject premises bearing no. 16/1244/1-E, Khalsa Nagar , Karol Bagh, Bappa Nagar, Delhi. He accompanied Himanshu Kr. (DET), Naushad Khan and Sh.Sanjay Kumar (lineman). They reached at the spot and checked the meter and found the date and time of BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 7 the meter disturbed from actual date and time. They found ESD applied on the meter to disturb the actual reading of the meter. It means the meter was found tampered. The load of the premises was taken which was found 13.592KW and was being used for non domestic purpose. The photography was done by Naushad who was one of the team member to show the exact position of load and the load was calculated by the DET Sh.Himanshu. MMG department was called at site from Patel Nagar Office and the meter was removed from the site and the supply was restored through new meter. He also testified that the inspection report was prepared by him which is already Ex.CW2/A running into 3 pages and bears his signatures at point A, load report (running in to 3 pages) was also prepared by him and same is Ex.CW2/B which bears his signatures at point A. (It was pointed out by the defence counsel that there were certain correction made by the pencil). The meter report (already Ex.CW2/C) was prepared by Sh.Himanshu which bears his signatures at point A and the signatures of Sh.Himanshu at point B. He identified the signatures BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 8 of Himanshu and thereafter the single phase electronic meter KAIFA make was removed and seized and the same was sealed with his seal (Ashok Kumar Sr. Manager, Enforcement-1). Seizure memo (already Ex.CW2/D) was prepared by Naushad which bears his signatures at point A and the signatures of Sh.Naushad at point B. They found labour of the accused were present at site and they disclosed that the supply was being used by the accused. He tried to tender the documents prepared at site to the laborers but they refused to accept the same accordingly the remarks have been mentioned regarding the refusal. They also tried to paste the copy of report at the wall of the premises but laborers did not allow the same. The photographs (already Ex.CW2/K collectively) were taken at the site and the CD is already Ex.CW2/L. They came back to the enforcement office and the reports were submitted to enforcement department for processing the case and the removed meter was sent to the lab for testing. He identified meter no.23502715 as the case property and testified that it was the same meter which was removed from BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 9 the site and carbon copy of seizure memo and meter is Ex.P1.
8). As per testimony of PW-2 Sh.Himanshu Kumar- DET, in the year 2009, he was posted as a DET at Gandhi Market, Enforcement department, BYPL. He testified that on 27.05.2009, at about 13.45pm he went at the subject premises bearing no. 16/1244/1-E, Khalsa Nagar, Karol Bagh, Bappa Nagar, Delhi. He accompanied Sh, Ashok Kumar (Team Leader), Naushad Khan and Sh.Sanjay Kumar (lineman). They reached at the spot and checked the meter and found the date and time of the meter disturbed from actual date and time. The meter was checked by Sh.Naushad and they found ESD applied on the meter to disturb the actual reading of the meter, it means the meter was found tampered. The load of the premises was taken by him which was found 13.592KW and was being used for non domestic purpose.The photography was done by Naushad who was one of the team member to show the exact position of load. Thereafter, MMG department was called at site from Patel Nagar Office and BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 10 the meter was removed from the site and the supply was restored through new meter. The inspection report was prepared Sh.Ashok Kumar (Team Leader) which is already Ex.CW2/A running into 3 pages and bears his signatures at point B, load report (already Ex.CW2/B) (running in to 3 pages) bears his signatures at point B. (It was pointed out by the defence counsel that there were certain correction made by the pencil). The meter report (already Ex.CW2/C) was prepared by him which bears his signatures at point B. Thereafter, the single phase electronic meter KAIFA make was removed and seized and the same was sealed with the seal of (Ashok Kumar Sr. Manager, Enforcement-1). Seizure memo (already Ex.CW2/D) was prepared by Naushad which bears his signatures at point C. They found labour of the accused were present at site alongwith the accused. He correctly identified the accused present in the court during trial as the same person who was present at the time of inspection at site. The report was tendered to the user but he refused to accept the same accordingly, the remarks have been mentioned regarding the BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 11 refusal. They also tried to paste the copy of report at the wall of the premises but laborers did not allow the same. The photographs (already Ex.CW2/K collectively) were taken at the site and the CD is already Ex.CW2/L. They came back to the enforcement office and the reports were submitted to enforcement department for processing the case and the removed meter was sent to the lab for testing.
9). As per testimony PW3-Sh.Rajeev Ranjan-AR, complainant company executed a POA in his favour dated 29.08.2006 by CEO Sh.Arun Kanchan for institution, singing, verifying and represent the complainant company. The Same is Ex.CW1/B and bears the signature of Sh.Arun Kanchan at point C. He also testified that he filed the present complaint being the the Authorized Representative of the complainant company and same is already Ex.CW1/A which bears his signature at point A. Further, on the basis of inspection report and load report, Enforcement Department of the complainant company prepared the theft bill for an amount of Rs.2,80,393/- which is Ex.CW2/I (already exhibited).
BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 12 Computer generated bill has been prepared in ordinary course of business of the company which is tampered proof document.
10). PW4 Sh.Srajan Mangal testified that he was posted as a Manager in enforcement-II of company at Patparganj. He was Assessing Officer in present case. On the basis of inspection report Ex.CW2/A, load report Ex.CW2/B, meter status report Ex.CW2/C, a show cause notice Ex.CW2/E was given by him to accused persons to appear before him for personal hearing at 10:30 to 12:30 pm. on 09.07.2009 and file a reply to the show cause notice on or before date of personal. The show cause notice bears his signatures at point A. On 09.07.2009, the accused Mohd. Sayum appeared and filed some documents in reply to the show cause notice. He also testified that documents filed by the accused through his counsel was Mark-4A(colly). On the basis of inspection report, load report, seizure memo and meter testing report which was already Ex. CW2/F and the meter downloading data, he passed the speaking order on 02.12.2009 and while BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 13 passing the speaking order, the representation of the accused was also considered. The speaking order is Ex.CW2/G which bears his signature at point A and same was to accused on 14.12.2009. Later on, it was found that there was a typographical error while typing the connected load on Ex.CW2/G at point B. He again passed a revised speaking order on 21.01.2010 which is already Ex.CW2/H which bears his signature at point A. Since, the meter of the accused was tampered, hence in his revised speaking order Ex.CW2/H, he corrected the connected load as 13.592 KW fro non-domestic purposes along with the necessary directions. In speaking order Ex.CW2/H, the electricity theft bill for meter tampering was raised which is already Ex.CW2/I.
11). PW5-Sh. Parsenjit- Assistant Manager testified that in the year 2009, he was posted as a Engg. in BYPL Laboratory, Savita Vihar. On 07.07.2009, a single phase meter no.23502715 make Kaifa was tested in the laboratory situated at near LSC main market, Savita Vihar, New Delhi-92. The meter was tested by BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 14 Manish Aggarwal in his presence. The data was also downloaded from the meter the same is Ex.PW5/A colly and the photograph of the meter Ex.PW5/B was also taken in the laboratory. On the basis of test, the laboratory report (already Ex.CW2/F) was prepared by Manish Aggarwal and the same was approved by him and bears his signatures at point A and signatures of Manish Aggarwal at point B. During the meter test it was revealed that extra soldering spot was found at 12 Volt. AC circuit on PCB and same is shown in the photograph Ex.PW5/B. Meter dates found disturbed. They reached the conclusion that meter found tampered. He identified the single phase meter bearing no.23502715 Ex. P-1 as the same meter which was tested in the lab in his presence.
12). Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, of accusedMohd. Sayyum had been recorded, in which he has denied the allegations against him and stated that he could not recollect due to lapse of time, however, some BSES officials visited his premises for change the BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 15 old meter and he was also not present at that time. He also stated that his labourers were present at the time of inspection and they disclosed him that some BSES officers reached at the subject premises and changed the old meter. They also disclosed him that BSES officers segregated the meter and they found nothing in the matter. He also stated that he had four meters installed in the premises in question and BSES officers wrongly calculated the loads of others meter. He also stated that he could not say whether the MMG department called by the inspection team to remove the meter, however, old meter got changed and electricity was restored through new meter. He also stated that no reports were prepared at that time. He also stated that labours disclosed him that no documents were prepared at the time of inspection that is why there was no question for denial to receive, refusal and paste the same. He also denied that reports were offered to him and stated that he was not present at the time of inspection. He also denied that he appeared for personal hearing and filed some BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 16 documents in reply to the show cause notice. He also stated that no speaking order as served on him by the BSES officers and he had no knowledge that the BSES officers passed the revised speaking order dated 21.01.2010 and also he had not received the same. He also stated that he had not been called by the BSES officers to join the meter testing process in the lab. He also stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
13). I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record as well as relevant provisions.
The provision of Regulation 52 (ix) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulation, 2007, is reproduced as under:- (ix) The report shall be signed by the Authorized Officer and each
member of the inspection team and the same must be handed over to the consumer or his/her representative at site immediately under proper receipt. In case of refusal by the consumer or his/her representative to either accept or give a receipt, a copy of inspection report must be BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 17 pasted at a conspicuous place in/outside the premises and photographed. Simultaneously, the report shall be sent to the consumer under Registered Post.
It is to note here that as per the testimony of PW1 Ashok Kumar, they found labour of the accused present at site and they disclosed that the supply is being used by the accused. He tried to tender the documents prepared at site to the labourers but they refused to accept the same, accordingly the remarks have been mentioned regarding the refusal. They also tried to paste the copy of report at the wall of the premises but laborers did not allow the same.
On the other hand, as per the testimony of PW2 Sh.Himanshu Kumar, they found labour of the accused were present at site alongwith the accused. He also testified that the report was tendered to the user but he refused to accept the same, accordingly, remarks have been mentioned regarding the refusal. They also tried to paste the copy of the report at the wall BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 18 of the premises but laborers did not allow the same.
Here, it is said that there is material contradiction in the statements of the PW1 and PW02 regarding presence of the accused. PW1 testified that only labourers of the accused were present and reports were offered to them but they refused to accept the same while as per testimony of PW2, the accused was also present with his labourers and he refused to accept the reports and accordingly, remarks have been mentioned regarding refusal. It is relevant to pen down here that when the statement of accused was recorded, he stated that he was not present at the site on 27.05.2009.
Furthermore, PW1 and 3 have not testified regarding sending of alleged reports through registered post to the accused.
It is also to note here that no document has been proved on record that the accused had been served the inspection report through registered post.
Therefore, the inspection team has not complied with BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 19 the mandatory regulation 52 (ix) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulation, 2007 which certainly goes against the complainant company. Thus, complainant company failed to prove that inspection report was ever served upon the accused.
It is to note here that PW1 and PW2 testified that the subject meter was sent to the lab for testing but they have not testified whether the accused was allegedly aware regarding testing of alleged subject meter in the laboratory. It is to note here that only during the cross-examination, PW2 stated that the show cause notice was also prepared at the site and given to the accused but he refused to accept the same and after seeing the record of the case, he stated that show cause notice prepared at site is not placed on record. More so, no alleged show cause notice notice has been relied upon by the witnesses.
Furthermore, it is also to note here that no document has been proved on record that the accused had been served any alleged show cause notice regarding presence of the BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 20 accused at the time of alleged testing of alleged meter in the laboratory.
Here view of the Court is that the complainant company failed to prove that notice was ever served upon the accused.
The provision of Regulation 53 (ii) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulation, 2007, is reproduced as under:- (ii) During the personal hearing, the Licensee shall give due
consideration to the facts submitted by the consumer and pass, within three days, a speaking order as to whether the case of theft is established or not. Speaking Order shall contain the brief of inspection report, submission made by consumer in his written reply and oral submissions during personal hearing and reasons for acceptance or rejection of the same.
It is to note here that as per the testimony of PW-04-
BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 21 Sh. Srajan Mangal, he issued a show cause notice dated
10.06.2009 Ex. CW2/E for personal hearing on 09.07.2009 at 10.30 am to 12.30 am and to file reply and accused appeared on 09.07.2009 and filed some documents in reply to the show cause notice and same is mark-4A (colly). It is relevant to pen down here that during cross-examination, he stated that there is no proof of postage of show cause notice in the judicial record. It is also relevant to pen down here that when the statement of accused was recorded, the accused stated that no show cause notice was served upon him.
Here, it is said that complainant company failed to prove that any show cause notice had been served upon the accused.
More so, as per testimony of PW-04, he passed the speaking order on 02.12.2009 Ex. CW2/G and sent to accused on 14.12.2009 and later on, it was found that there was a typographical error while typing the connected load in Ex. PW2/G, he again passed a revised speaking order dated 21.01.2010.
It is view of the Court is that the alleged speaking order BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 22 dated 02.12.2009 should have passed within three days from the date of personal hearing i.e. 09.07.2009 but same was passed on 02.12.2009 i.e. after the gap of approx. 05 months. No reason assigned for the such a huge delay in passing the speaking order. Hence, the complainant company has not complied with the aforesaid regulation.
In the judgment titled as Col. R.K.Nayyar vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 140 (2007) DLT 257, wherein it has been observed as under :-
"This court is of the view that an inference of fraudulent abstraction of energy must be based on the some conclusive evidence that the user has tampered with the meter in a manner that has enabled such user to either slow down the meter or make it record lesser units of consumption. There must be a link established between the physical evidence of tampering noticed on inspection and the consumer. An inference of FAE should not be permitted to be drawn on the mere fact that meter had been found with broken seal. An electricity meter is admittedly not kept enclosed in a tamper proof environment under the lock and key, with one key retained by the consumer and the other by the supplier of the electricity. If a meter is kept in a location that permits any person intending to do mischief to have easy assess to the meter, than to fasten the charge of FAE on the consumer in the event of meter being found tampered, is not being reasonable or even realistic. Something more would have to be demonstrated to infer an intention by the consumer to "fraudulently" abstract electricity. In this context it is necessary to emphasis that the analysis of consumption pattern cannot constitute substantive BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 23 proof of DAE in the absence of tangible physical evidence of DAE in the manner explained above. In other words, the analysis of consumption pattern can only corroborate what is found on physical inspection which can indicate whether the consumer has herself or himself employed a device or a method to dishonestly abstract electricity. It will not be opened to the respondent, in the absence of any tangible evidence of DAE, to proceed on the basis of consumption pattern to infer DAE.
It is to note here that as per the testimony of PW1 and PW2, during inspection they found that ESD applied on the meter to disturb the actual reading of the meter. It is also to note here that as per the cross-examination of PW2-Sh. Himanshu Kumar- DET, the checking of the meter was a team work and no individual effort of their team member. He had also observed that at the time of checking of the meter that ESD has been applied on the meter. He also stated that during inspection, the instrument from which the ESD has been applied on the meter could not be found at the premises and no illegal component or resistance were recovered inside the meter during the inspection. It is also relevant to pen down here that as per the cross-examination of PW5, he admitted that without opening the seal and ultrasonic welding, no extra soldering can be done in any meter. He also stated that no foreign BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 24 material was found in the meter but extra soldering spots occurs only when foreign material was installed in the meter. It is also to note here that during the cross-examination, PW04 stated that the allegation of tampering as referred to by the lab report pertain to illegal soldering spots on the PCB of the meter. He admitted that without opening the meter and tampering the seals, soldering spots cannot be there on the PCB. He also admitted that as per the meter report Ex. CW2/C, the seals and ultra sonic welding were shown as intact and also admitted that there was no mentioning of illegal spots on Ex. CW2/C. In light of above, here, view of the Court is that in the instant case, the complainant company has failed to show that the accused has used the eternal device/ESD so as to disturb the meter in question and to slow down the consumption pattern.
It is also relevant to pen down here that as per the testimony of PW2, the photography was done by the Naushad who was one of the team member to show the exact position of load. He also relied upon photographs Ex. CW2/K (colly) and CD BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 25 Ex. CW2/L. It is to note here that alleged Naushad who had allegedly taken the photography has not been examined by the complainant company in this case.
Moreover, the complainant company has also not relied upon the requisite certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, so as to prove the photographs Ex. CW2/K (colly) and CD Ex. CW2/L. Thus, the complainant company has failed to prove the photography in the present case in accordance with law. Therefore, the photographs Ex. CW2/K (colly) and CD Ex. CW2/L are of no help for the case of the complainant company.
In this case, the inspection team has not joined the independent public persons during inspection. It is to note here that PW1 and PW2 did not testify regarding joining of any public witness. Further, in the inspection report Ex.CW2/A also nothing has been mentioned that any efforts were made by the team to join the public persons in the inspection. Public person should have been joined in the inspection. Therefore, non-joining of the public persons during inspection also goes against the BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 26 complainant company.
As per the testimony of PW1 and PW2, there were four members of the alleged inspection team. It is very relevant to pen down here that complainant company examined only two members out of alleged four members of alleged inspecting team. More so, complainant company failed to produce the PW1 for crossexamination as stated before and it is settled law that incomplete evidence cannot be read.
In view of above-discussion, the complainant company has failed to prove the offence alleged against the accused-Mohd. Sayyum @ Sayumuddin beyond reasonable doubt in the present case. Thus, the accused namely Mohd. Sayyum @ Sayumuddin is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, accused namely Mohd. Sayyum @ Sayumuddin is acquitted for the offence punishable Under Section 135, 138 and 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Bail bond of the accused stands canceled and his surety is also discharged. Amount, if any, deposited by the accused as a condition for bail or in pursuance to interim order of the court qua the theft assessment BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 27 bill raised by the company on the basis of alleged inspection dated 27.05.2009 be released by the complainant company after expiry of the period of appeal. It is to note here that bail bond U/s 437 (A) Cr.P.C. of accused has been furnished and accepted. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA Date:
2018.07.30 16:21:02 +0530 Announced in open court (Rekha ) on day of 30 July, 2018. ASJ(Special Court)Electricity, th Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi BYPL Vs . Mohd. Sayyum & Anr. page 28