Delhi District Court
State vs . Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra on 23 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP YADAV, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE/SPECIAL COURT (ELECTRICITY) (SOUTH), SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 406/17
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur
U/S : 135 of Electricity Act, 2003.
State
Vs
Sandhy Gupta @ Shipra
(i) Name of complainant : Ram Kumar Sengar
Assistant Manager
(BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
(ii) Date of commission of : 27.02.2016
Offence
(iii) Name of the accused : Sandhya Gupta @ Sipra,
W/o Sh. Hariom @ Harish
R/o. H.No. F30/35, Krishna Gali,
Sanjay Ka Makan,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
(iv) Offence complained of : 135 of Electricity Act, 2003
(v) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(vi) Judgment pronounced on : 23.02.2022.
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 406/17 1/9
State Vs. Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra
1. Prosecution version disclosed during trial may be briefly noted down as under :
2. A joint inspection team of BSES comprising of Mr. Ram Kumar Sengar/Asstt. Manager, Mr. Pramod, (D.Engg.) and Mr. Mahendra (D.Engg.) inspected the premises bearing Qtr. No. C203, Sewa Nagar, New Delhi. No meter, no D.G. set and no other source of electricity supply was found at the site and accused Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra was found indulging in direct theft of electricity by using electricity through illegal wire which was connected from BSES service cable. The total connected load was found to the extent of 4.833 KW for use of domestic purpose which was found running directly by accused at the aforesaid premises. Inspection report and load report were prepared at the site on the basis of factual position. Videography of irregularity and connected load was done by Mr. Sonu/photographer from M/s. Arora Photo Studio in the presence of members of inspection team and user at site. The illegal tapping material upto possible extent was removed from the site as material evidence. The said material was seized and seizure memo was prepared at the site and signed by members of inspection team. Accused refused to sign inspection report, load report and seizure memo and did not allow team members of inspection team to paste the same on the premises. Accused thus indulged in dishonestly stealing electricity without any authorization or permission by complainant company. Complainant company (BSES) assessed the theft to the tune of Rs. 63,694/ as per DERC guidelines and same was sent to accused but no payment was made by accused.
FIR No. 406/17 2/9State Vs. Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra
3. Accordingly, a complaint u/s. 135 Electricity Act, 2003 for alleged theft of electricity was given by Mr. Ram Kumar Sengar/Asstt. Manager, BSES to SHO PS Kotla Mubarakpur against accused. On the basis of this complaint, FIR bearing no. 406/17 was registered u/s. 135 Electricity Act. Investigation commenced which culminated in the charge sheet against accused. Subsequently, accused was summoned. On the appearance of accused, notice as contemplated u/s. 251 Cr.PC was served on accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and stated that she has not committed any direct theft of electricity. Thereafter, trial commenced and prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case against accused. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.PC wherein she denied all incriminatory evidence. Accused stated that she has settled the matter with complainant company towards civil liability and she is not liable to pay the money of assessed bill raised by BSES.
4. I have heard Mr. Jagdamba Pandey, ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for State, Mr. Amit Gupta, ld. Counsel for accused and Mr. Ranjeet Singh, ld. Counsel for accused, at length.
5. PW 1 Mr. Ram Kumar Sengar/Asstt. Manager/BSES was part of inspection team PW 1 inter alia deposed that when they reached the premises i.e. C203, Sewa Nagar, New Delhi, they found that there was no electricity meter installed at the site and user was found indulging in direct theft of electricity by illegal tapping from BSES service cable with the help FIR No. 406/17 3/9 State Vs. Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra of illegal wire. PW 1 further deposed that during inspection, total connected load of premises in question was assessed which was found to be 4.833 KW approx. for domestic purpose. The connected load was covered in the videography conducted at the site alongwith mode of theft of electricity. Inspection report, load report and seizure memo were prepared at the site. These documents were shown to PW 1 who identified his signatures on these documents which were exhibited as Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. During his examination, PW 1 identified the wire seized at the site as Ex. P2 and his signatures on the seizure memo. The compact disc containing videography conducted at the site was played in the Court during testimony of PW 1 and PW 1 pointed out the accused as depicted in the videography. PW 1 finally deposed that on 15.07.2016, complaint u/s. 135 Electricity Act Ex. PW1/E was filed at PS Kotla Mubarakpur which was duly signed by him.
6. PW 1 Mr. Ram Kumar Sengar was cross examined at length by ld. Defence witness. PW 1 deposed in cross examination that during inspection accused disclosed her name as Shipra and also stated that premises in question was allotted to Bhagwat Prasad. PW 1 admitted that Bhagwat Prasad is not made an accused in the present case. It has also come in the cross examination of PW 1 that he did not see identity proof of accused at the time of inspection. Giving answer to question regarding joining of public person in inspection, PW 1 deposed that he asked some persons to join as witness but nobody came forward for the same.
FIR No. 406/17 4/9State Vs. Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra
7. PW 2 HC Ashok Kumar is the Duty Officer who registered FIR in this case. PW 3 Mahender Prasad/Diploma Engineer/BSES, who was part of inspection team, deposed on similar lines as deposed by PW 1. PW 3 Mahender Prasad inter alia deposed that during inspection on the direction of Ram Kumar Sengar/Asstt. Manager/Team Leader, PW 3 assessed the total connected load of premises in question which was found to be 4.833 KW approx. for domestic purpose. According to PW 3 the connected load was covered in the videography conducted at the site alongwith mode of theft of electricity. PW 3 identified his signatures on documents Ex. PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. In cross examination, PW 3 Mahender Prasad deposed that his role is limited to assess the connected load during inspection. Thereafter, certain suggestions were put to PW 3 which he denied.
8. PW 4 HC Anand Pal is the IO of the case who conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW 4 HC Anand Pal inter alia deposed that he enquired from the office of CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi regarding the accused and found that inspected premises was allotted to Vijay Kumar who has already expired; thereafter during investigation, PW 4 found that at the time of inspection, accused Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra w/o. Hari Om @ Harish was residing at the aforesaid premises; after investigation, accused vacated the aforesaid premises as she was tenant in the said premises. PW 4 further deposed that notice u/s. 41 Cr.PC Ex. PW4/C was served upon the accused and accused handed over copy of her adhar card and ID card to PW 4 which have been filed with the charge FIR No. 406/17 5/9 State Vs. Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra sheet. In cross examination, PW 4 deposed that on 21.11.2017 when he inspected the premises in question, accused and owner were not present.
9. PW 5 Mr. G.B. Barapatre was working as DGM Finance, BSES at the time of his examination and he was examined in place of Mr. N.K. Srivastava, the then AFO who was working under PW 5 and was retired from services in the year 2018. PW 5 deposed that he can identify signatures and writing of Mr. N.K. Srivastava as PW 5 had seen him writing and signing during the course of his duty. During recording of testimony of PW 5 assessment of direct theft bill placed on judicial file was shown to him and PW 5 identified signatures of Mr. N.K. Srivastava on the same and the assessment of theft bill was exhibited as Ex. PW5/A.
10. PW 6 Mr. Pramod Kumar/Diploma Engineer/BSES was also one of the members of inspection team. PW 6 deposed on similar lines. PW 6 Mr. Pramod Kumar inter alia deposed that on reaching the site, they found that there was no electricity meter installed at the side and user was found indulging in direct theft of electricity by illegally tapping from BSES service cable with the help of illegal wire. PW 6 deposed that during inspection, he assessed the total connected load of premises in question which was found to be 4.8 KW approx. for domestic purpose on the direction of team leader. PW 6 further deposed that connected load was covered in the videography. PW 6 also identified his signatures on documents Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. FIR No. 406/17 6/9 State Vs. Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra
11. PW 7 Mr. Sonu is the photographer who conducted the videography at the site and identified the videography contained in compact disc Ex. PW1/D1.
12. One of the points vehemently stressed by Mr. Ranjit Singh, ld. Counsel for accused, was that no evidence is on record to connect the accused with premises which was inspected in the present case, submission being that accused has nothing to do with the premises in question and she has been falsely implicated.
13. PW 4 HC Anand Pal who is the IO of the case deposed that during investigation, he found that at the time of inspection, accused Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra was residing in the premises in question and after investigation, she vacated the said premises. Besides, during inspection, enforcement inspection report Ex. PW1/A was prepared wherein accused has been shown as the user. It is stated in the inspection report that no meter was found at the site and user was found indulging in direct theft of electricity.
14. It is pertinent to mention here with these documents viz. Inspection report Ex. PW1/A and load report Ex. PW1/B were not challenged by accused in cross examination. These documents were proved during deposition of PW 1 Mr. Ram Kumar Sengar, PW 3 Mr. Mahender Prasad and PW 6 Mr. Pramod. No suggestion was put to these witnesses by accused that these documents are not genuine documents or that accused FIR No. 406/17 7/9 State Vs. Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra was not found indulging in direct theft of electricity at the site. Infact no defence was putforth or adduced by accused to the effect that she was using the electricity in an authorised manner. Enforcement report Ex. PW1/A was not denied by accused. In (1976) 12 DLT 311 - Balkishan Vs. State & Anr. it was held as '' it has been held by Courts that where a particular material assertion is made in examination in chief and the witness is not cross examined in respect of that assertion then it will be taken that the party affected admits the truth of that assertion''.
15. Next submission of Mr. Ranjit Singh, ld. Counsel for accused, was that allottee of premises in question was neither arrayed as an accused nor as a witness. It has come in the deposition of PW 4 HC Anand Pal/IO that during investigation, PW 4 found that inspected premises was allotted to one Vijay Kumar who has already expired. Therefore, IO could not have cited the dead person as a witness. Neither PW 4/IO could have arrayed a dead person as an accused. Therefore, this submission of ld. Counsel for accused is without any substance.
16. Another submission of Mr. Ranjit Singh, ld. Counsel for accused, was that Mr. N.K. Srivastava who prepared the bill was not examined as a witness and this is a serious lacunae in the case of prosecution. It needs to be clarified that PW 5 Mr. G.B. Barapatre was examined in place of Mr. N.K. Srivastava as he has retired from service in the year 2018. PW 5 Mr. G.B. Barapatre categorically deposed that he can identify the signatures and writing of Mr. N.K. Srivastava. Thus, PW 5 was competent to prove FIR No. 406/17 8/9 State Vs. Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra the theft of assessed bill as Ex. PW5/A as per provision of Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act.
17. Accused was clearly identified by PW 1 Mr. Ram Kumar Sengar in the videography. Sofar as controversy as regards correct name of accused is concerned in cross examination, PW 1 deposed that accused disclosed her name as Shipra. However, once accused was clearly identified by PW 1 in the videography, the controversy regarding her name pales into insignificance. It is clearly mentioned in enforcement inspection report Ex. PW1/A that accused is the user who was found indulging in direct theft of electricity. As discussed above, this inspection report was neither denied nor challenged by accused during trial. Prosecution thus succeeds in proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra who was found committing direct theft of electricity by directly tapping from service cable through illegal wire and thus committed theft of electricity to the extent of total connected load of 4.833 KW for domestic purpose.
18. Accordingly, accused Sandhya Gupta @Shipra is convicted u/s. 135 Electricity Act, 2003.
Let Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra be heard on the point of sentence on 25.02.2022 at 12 O'clock.
Announced in the open ( SANDEEP YADAV)
court on 23.02.2022 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
FIR No. 406/17 9/9
State Vs. Sandhya Gupta @ Shipra