Delhi District Court
State vs . Sahi Ram on 10 December, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NAROTTAM KAUSHAL, ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE,
THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. :7/12
FIR No. : 106/12
PS : Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi
U/S : 135 of Electricity Act, 2003
State Vs. Sahi Ram
a Name of the complainant :Sh.Nirankar Singh - Asstt. Manager
(Enforcement, BSES Rajdhani
Power Ltd., Andrews Ganj, N.D)
b Date of commission of : 01.02.2012
Offence
c Name of the accused :Sahi Ram
R/o House Near Khasara No.204/105,
Behind Harswaroop colony,
Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi
d Offence complained of :135 of Electricity Act, 2003
e Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f Order pronounced on : 10.12.2012
ORDER
1 Accused Sahi Ram has been charge sheeted by PSFatehpur Beri for the offence punishable u/sec.135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').
2.1 FIR Ex.PW1/A has been lodged on a written complaint made by Nirankar Singh - Assistant Manager, BRPL. It is the case of the complainant that a team of its officers inspected House, Near Khasara No.204/105, Behind Harswaroop colony, Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi on 01.022012, which was used and occupied by accused Sahi Ram for domestic as well, as agricultural purposes. At State Vs. Sahi Ram Page 1 of 3 2 the time of inspection, premises was consuming electricity by directly tapping from BSES LV mains. No meter was found installed at the site. Connected load was assessed at 8.635 KW for domestic use as well, as agricultural use. Inspection report, load report and seizure memo were prepared. Videography of the inspection was carried out. A theft bill of Rs.1,12,902/ was raised. On failure of the accused to pay the theft bill, complaint was made to the PS - Fatehpur Beri for registration of FIR.
2.2 On the basis of complaint aforesaid, FIR bearing no.106/12 Ex.PW1/A was registered and after investigation Chalan was submitted.
3 As per provisions of section 154 (3) of the Act, procedure for summary trial was adopted.
4 Notice of accusation was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He, however, stated that he had paid the entire theft bill and the complainant company had issued a no dues certificate to him.
5 Prosecution in support of its case, examined HC Rajneesh, No.3437/SD, PSFatehpur Beri, New Delhi (PW1) and complainant Nirankar Singh - Assistant Manager, BRPL (PW2). Duty Officer (PW1) proved the FIR. Nirankar Singh (PW2) proved the inspection and the documents prepared at the site. During crossexamination, no dues certificate issued by the complainant company was confronted to the witness. He admitted the genuineness and issuance of said certificate. Remaining prosecution evidence was closed by order of the court. For ready reference order closing prosecution evidence is reproduced herein below: "PW1 & PW2 examined, crossexamined & discharged. It is noticed that PW2, who is the Authorized Officer of the complainant company, in his crossexamination has admitted issuance of no dues certificate.
At this stage, counsel for the accused has submitted that no useful purpose shall be served by recording the evidence of remaining witnesses, when the complainant itself has issued a no dues certificate to the accused.
State Vs. Sahi Ram Page 2 of 3 3I have heard the counsel for the accused & find force in his arguments.
Prosecution in the present case has been instituted on a complaint filed by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. to the SHO PSFatehpur Beri, New Delhi, through its authorised officer Nirankar Singh - Assistant Manager, for the reason that its theft bill amounting to Rs. 1,12,902/ had not been paid by accused Sahi Ram. Now, that the settled theft bill has been paid by the accused and no dues certificate issued by the complainant, the cause of action for filing the complaint does not exist any more. Proceeding with the trial and recording the testimonies of the PWs shall only result in futile exercise involving wastage of court time as well as time of public functionaries who were associated in inspection & investigation. I, therefore, find this is an appropriate case where powers u/sec.258 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and prosecution case can be closed. "
6 The accused having paid the entire claim settled by the complainant towards its theft bill, no useful purpose shall be served by continuing with the trial. It is accepted practice in private complaints filed by the complainant company that matters are settled and complaints are withdrawn on the accused paying up of the bill as per the settlement arrived at. In the present case, accused has paid the settled theft bill, leaving no cause of action for the complainant to pursue the complaint. Its claim has been fully satisfied by the accused. Continuing with the trial will only amount to wastage of court time and harassment of the accused. Exercising power u/sec.258 Cr.P.C., the proceedings are stopped without pronouncing any judgment. This shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused. Personal bond & surety bond of the accused are cancelled and surety is discharged.
File be consigned to Record room.
Announced in the open (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
court on 10.12.2012 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
State Vs. Sahi Ram Page 3 of 3
4
SC No.7/12
FIR No.106/12
10122012
Present Ld. Addl. PP for the State
AR with Sh.Sourab Bajaj, proxy counsel for
Sh.Rishab Raj Jain, counsel for the complainant
Sh.A.A.Khan, ld. counsel for the accused
Sh. Khan has moved an application for exemption from personal appearance of the accused. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, exemption of the accused is allowed for today only.
PW1 & PW2 examined, crossexamined & discharged. It is noticed that PW2, who is the Authorized Officer of the complainant company, in his cross examination has admitted issuance of no dues certificate.
At this stage, counsel for the accused has submitted that no useful purpose shall be served by recording the evidence of remaining witnesses, when the complainant itself has issued a no dues certificate to the accused.
I have heard the counsel for the accused & find force in his arguments. Prosecution in the present case has been instituted on a complaint filed by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. to the SHO PSFatehpur Beri, New Delhi, through its authorised officer Nirankar Singh - Assistant Manager, for the reason that its theft bill amounting to Rs. 1,12,902/ had not been paid by accused Sahi Ram. Now, that the settled theft bill has been paid by the accused and no dues certificate issued by the complainant, the cause of action for filing the complaint does not exist any more. Proceeding with the trial and recording the testimonies of the PWs shall only result in futile exercise involving wastage of court time as well as time of public functionaries who were associated in inspection & investigation. I, therefore, find this is an appropriate case where powers u/sec.258 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and prosecution case can be closed.
Vide separate order announced today, the proceedings are stopped without pronouncing any judgment. This shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused.
Bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged.
File be consigned to record room.
State Vs. Sahi Ram Page 4 of 3 5( NAROTTAM KAUSHAL ) ASJ/SPL.COURT(ELECT.)SOUTH SAKET COURTS/10122012 State Vs. Sahi Ram Page 5 of 3