Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Page 1 Of 9 on 19 November, 2022
State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Page 1 of 9
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, ELECTRICITY COURT, DISTT. NORTH
WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No : 302/2022
FIR No : 509/2021
P.S. : Aman Vihar
U/S : 136 & 139 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003
STATE VS. RAMESH KUMAR AGGARAWAL
1. Date of Commission of Offence : 26.08.2021
2. Date of institution of the case : 20.04.2022
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ram Samus @ Ram
Samujh (TPDDL).
4. Name of accused, parentage
& address. : Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal S/o
Late Sh. Raghuvir Prasad, R/o;
H.No. F-24/120, Sec. 3, Rohini,
Delhi.
5. Offence complained or proved :136/139 of Electricity Act.
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty.
7. Final Order : Convicted.
8. Date of Reserving judgment : 15.11.2022
9. Date of Final Order : 19.11.2022
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
1. A complaint was received in Police Station: Aman Vihar regarding the illegal shifting of an electricity pole from the complainant Ram Samujh that he was posted as Zonal Shift Officer, Zone 519, Sector-19, Rohini, Delhi. That on 26.08.2021, he alongwith his team went to Sector-21 to check the network of the complainant State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Page 2 of 9 company/TPDDL (hereinafter referred to as complainant company) and he found that pole no. 519-20/2/1/4/2 (hereinafter referred to as pole in question) was shifted from his actual position which was in front of House no. 87, pocket-1, Sector-21, Rohini, Delhi, illegally. The said house was being constructed at the time of the incident, the said act was done by the owner of the premises and by doing it he has endanger to human life and legal action be taken against the owner of the premises.
On the same day, a complaint was made on the PCR at 100 number and gave complaint in PS Aman Vihar on 27.08.2021 On the said complaint, the present FIR u/s 136/139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was registered. POLICE INVESTIGATION:-
2. During investigation, the police recorded the statement of the witnesses. The accused was bound down under section 41 (A) Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the present accused.
NOTICE:-
3. Arguments on notice was heard and the notice was framed qua the accused under Section 136/139 of the Electricity Act. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:-
4. PW-1 was the Duty Officer/ASI Virender, who proved the FIR bearing no. 509/2021, as Ex. PW-1/A and the certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act as Ex. PW-1/B. The endorsement on rukka is Ex. PW-1/B.
5. PW-2 Complainant Sh. Ram Samujh, who deposed that on 26.08.2021, he alongwith team of break down 11 TV went to the site in question, where the pole no. 519-20/2/1/4/2 was illegally and unauthorizedly shifted from the house no. 87, Pocket-1, Sector-21, Rohini, Delhi five feet ahead of its exact place and live wires were found State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Page 3 of 9 cut and re jointed on the TPDLL network. He further deposed that due to illegal shifting of the pole, the wires and ABC cables were damaged due to which TPDDL suffered heavy loss. He lodged a complaint with the PS Aman Vihar, which is Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signature at point A.
6. PW-3 IOASI Begraj, who deposed that 27.08.2021, the written complaint Ex. PW2/A was marked to him by SHO of PS Aman Vihar and on 29.09.2021, he got FIR no. 509/2021 registered. On 30.09.2021, he called complainant Shri Ram Samujh at the spot and he showed the place where the pole was originally located and the place where it was shifted. He further deposed that at the pointing out of Sh. Ram Samujh, he prepared a rough site plan, Ex. PW3/A. The place from the pole was shifted shown at point A and the place to which the pole was shifted shown at point B in the site sketch. On the same day, he recorded the statement of the complainant U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on 10.12.2021, he served a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused for joining the investigation. Accused was also bound down for his appearance before the Court. The notice is Ex. PW3/B. He further deposed that he served a notice U/s. 91 Cr.P.C. to the Zonal Manager of TPDDL for producing the record qua the shifting of pole, if any, given by the accused or any other person and also the record regarding the damage caused by shifting. The notice is Ex. PW3/C and reply submitted by the Zonal Manager is Ex. PW3/D. Thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet and submitted in the court.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/s 313 Cr.P.C
7. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded, in which the accused stated that he had not shifted the pole. He was doing the work of supervisor of the construction work. He had been State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Page 4 of 9 assigned the work of construction of the property of Shri Manoj Kansal, who is the owner of H.No. 87, Pocket-1, Sector-21, Rohini, Delhi and Sh. Manoj Kansal had purchased the property from Smt. Suman Gupta with the assurance that they will get the pole shifted and they had got the pole shifted from the original place and he has nothing to do with the same. He further deposed that neither he is the owner nor the occupant of the property in question. He came to know that the pole has been illegally shifted later on when the officials of TPDDL visited the site.
He led the defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:-
8. Accused examined himself as DW-1, who deposed that he was the Construction Supervisor of H.No. 87, pocket-1, Sector-21, Rohini, Delhi owned by Sh. Manoj Kansal. Sh. Manoj Kansal had purchased the said plot from Smt. Suman Gupta in the month of March, 2021. Smt. Suman Gupta had assured Shri Manoj Kansal that she will get the pole shifted from its present location to another location as the pole was located near the boundary of the plot. He further deposed that in August, 2021, when the pole was being shifted, they assured that the same is being shifted in a legal way, because the persons, who came at the site to shift were claiming to be from the complainant company i.e. TPDDL and as a lay man they took it as granted that they are the official persons of the complainant company/TPDDL. He further deposed that on after 2/3 days, the complainant company officials came to the site plan only they came to know that this pole has been shifted illegally. They have built up the property in question from the underneath and spent a lot of money on it, hence, if they were aware that his pole is being shifted illegally, they must not have gone through illegal way and they will have done it State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Page 5 of 9 through proper course of action.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-
9. The accused has been charged for committing the offence under Section 136 & 139 of The Electricity Act, 2003. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"....Section 136 of The Electricity Act, 2003
136. Theft of electric lines and materials.-(1) whoever, dishonestly-
(a) cuts or removes or takes away or transfers any electric line, material or meter from a tower, pole, any other installation or place of installation or any other place, or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored, deposited, kept stocked, situated or located, including during transportation, without the consent of the licensee or the owner, as the case may be, whether or not the act is done for profit or gain; or
(b) stores, possesses or otherwise keeps in his premises, custody or control, any electric line, material or meter without the consent of the owner, whether or not the act is committed for profit or gain; or
(c) loads, carries, or moves from one place to another any electric line, material or meter without the consent of its owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or gain, is said to have committed an offence of theft of electric lines and materials, and shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
(2) If a person, having being convicted of an offence punishable under sub-section (1) is again guilty of an offence punishable under that sub-section, he shall be punishable for the second or subsequent offence for a term of imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees. Section 139. Negligently breaking or damaging works- Whoever, negligently breaks, injures, throws down or damages any material connected with the supply of electricity, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees...".
State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Page 6 of 910. Though the complainant who has examined as PW-2 has categorically deposed in his cross examination that he is not the eye witness for shifting of the pole in question. PW-2 has even admitted that he has not seen the accused when the pole in question was illegally shifted. However, accused who has been examined as DW-1 has admitted that the pole in question was shifted in his presence. The relevant extract of examination of DW-1 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"...In August 2021, when the pole was being shifted, we assumed that the same is being shifted in a legal way, because the persons who came at the site to shift were claiming to be from the complainant company i.e. TPDDL and as a lay man we took it is granted that they are the official persons of the complainant company i.e. TPDDL. But after 2-3 days, the complainant company i.e. TPDDL officials came to the site then only we came to know that this pole has been shifted illegally...".
11. The procedure for shifting of pole has been provided in the DERC (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017. The relevant clauses are reproduced below for ready reference:-
"...24 Procedure for shifting electric line or electrical plant of the Licensee:-
(1) The owner of the land or his successor in interest, who has given right of way for the construction of an existing electric line or electrical plant over, under, along, across, in or upon the said land, may apply for shifting the electric line or electrical plant to any other portion of his land for genuine purposes:
(2) The application for shifting the electric line or electrical plant shall be submitted to the Licensee. (3) On receipt of the application, the Licensee shall inspect the site and assess the technical feasibility of the proposed shifting.
(4) The request for shifting an electric line or electrical plant shall be granted only if:-State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Page 7 of 9
(i) the proposed shifting is technically feasible, and
(ii) the owner of the land of his successor in interest gives consent in writing to shift the electric line or electrical plant to any other portion of his land or to any other land owned by him or any alternate right of way to be arranged by him for shifting the electric line and the electrical plant and
(iii) the owner of the land or his successor in interest shall take necessary permission/approval for road cutting or right of way, if required.
(iv) the applicant remits the applicable charges required for shifting the electric line or electrical plant. (5) The Licensee shall shift the electric line or electrical plant, if the conditions specified in sub-regulation (4) are complied with by the applicant.
(6) In case of shifting of meter or service line within the premises of the consumer, the procedure specified in the Regulation 25 shall apply.
25. Procedure for shifting of meter or service line within the premises of the consumer:-
(1) The consumer shall apply to the Licensee for shifting the meter within the existing premises or for deviation of existing service line within his property.
(2) The Licensee shall conduct the site inspection, (3) The charges for shifting of meter and service line for the connection on the same premises shall be as notified in the Commission's Orders.
(4) If shifting requires new service line, the Licensee shall be entitled to levy the Service Line cum Development charges.
12. The accused has failed to bring on record any permission as per the provision mentioned above for shifting of the pole in question. Needless to say that the ignorance of law is no excuse. The site plan, which is Ex. PW3/A has been brought on record in the deposition of Investigating Officer who has been examined as PW-3. Even the said site plan has not been disputed by the accused. The accused has only taken the defence that the erstwhile owner Smt. Suman Gupta had assured at the time of execution of the Sale Deed that she will take appropriate State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Page 8 of 9 steps for shifting of the pole in question. The defence of the accused find mention in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"....It is incorrect. I had not shifted the pole. I was doing the work of supervisor of the construction work. I had been assigned the work of construction of the property of Shri Manoj Kansal, who is the owner of H.No. 87, Pocket-1, Sector-21, Rohini, Delhi and Sh. Manoj Kansal had purchased the property from Smt. Suman Gupta with the assurance that they will get the pole shifted and they had got the pole shifted from the original place and I have nothing to do with the same. Neither, I am the owner nor the occupant of the property in question. I came to know that the pole has been illegally shifted later on when the officials of TPDDL visited the site...".
13. The contention of the accused has remained unproved as the accused has admitted that the Sale Deed do not contain any term/recital regarding the shifting of the pole in question by Smt. Suman Gupta. The relevant extract of cross examination of DW-1 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"...It is correct that in the said documents, it is not mentioned that Smt. Suman Gupta will get the pole shifted...".
14. It is pertinent to mention here that the Sale Deed was executed on 01.03.2021 and the shifting of pole in question has taken place much after in the month of August, 2021. The accused had the opportunity to examine Sh. Manoj Kansal as a witness to prove his contention, however, the accused has failed to do so. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused seems to be afterthought.
15. The complainant (PW-2) has categorically deposed that due to illegal shifting of pole the wires and ABC cables were damaged. The State Vs. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Page 9 of 9 accused has failed to dispute this fact during the cross examination. The testimony regarding the damage caused to the complainant company has remained unrebutted and uncontested.
CONCLUSION:-
16. The prosecution witnesses have categorically proved the commission of offence against the accused, whereas, the accused has failed to discharge his onus to prove the fact alleged by him. The prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for offence u/s. 136 & 139 of Electricity Act. Let the copy of judgment be supplied to the convict free of costs.
17. Put up for determination of civil liability and order on sentence today itself. Digitally signed JITENDRA by JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.28 19:07:54 +0530 Announced in the open court (JITENDRA SINGH) today i.e. on 19.11.2022 ASJ(Electricity)/Distt. North-West Rohini Courts, Delhi, 19.11.2022