Delhi District Court
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd vs Jaswant S/O Balwant on 18 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. HARLEEN SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL ELECTRICITY COURT),SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Ct. Case No.248/2020
CNR No. DLSW01- 001945-2020
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
Having its registered office at:
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019
Also at:
Corporate, Legal and Enforcement Cell,
Near Andrews Ganj Market, Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi - 110049
through Mr. Ashutosh Kumar
(Authorized Representative) ......Complainant
Versus
1. Jaswant (User)
S/o Sh. Balwant
2. Vikas (RC)
Both R/o Plot No. A-43/1 & A-44/1,
Kh. No.147/11/2, Near Pole No. NJF-DF-92,
Nirmal Vihar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043. .....Accused persons
Date of institution of the case :17.02.2020
Offence complained of :U/s 135 read with
Section 150 of the
Electricity Act, 2003
Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty
Final order :Acquitted
Date of judgment :18.12.2025
Ct. Case No. 248/2020
BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 1 of 19
Digitally signed
HARLEEN by HARLEEN
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.12.18
17:34:10 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgment, this court shall decide the complaint case filed by the complainant i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. under Section 151 read with Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for summary trial under Section 154 (3) of the said Act, and also for determination of civil liability under Section 154 (5) of the said Act, against the accused no.1 Jaswant (as user) and against the accused no.2 Vikas (as registered (as the registered consumer).
Case of the complainant
2. It is the case of the complainant/BSES that on 11.01.2020 at about 06:45 AM, a BSES team comprising of Mr. Amit Kumar Antil (Assistant Manager, BSES), Mr. Somveer (GET, BSES), Mr. Neeraj (Technician, BSES) and Mr. Deepak Jr. (Videographer from M/s Arora Photo Studio) visited and inspected the premises i.e. Plot No. A-43/1 and A-44/1, Kh. No.147/11/2, Near Pole No. NJF-DF-92, Nirmal Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned premises). During the inspection, it was found that the accused no.1 Jaswant was the user of the impugned premises, whereas the accused no.2 Vikas was the registered consumer. Ct. Case No. 248/2020
BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 2 of 19
Digitally signed
HARLEEN by HARLEEN
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.12.18
17:34:18 +0530
Further, one electricity meter bearing no.60068881 bearing CA No. 152355888 was found installed at the premises in the name of the accused no.2. It is further averred in the complaint that the accused were found indulging in direct theft of electricity from BSES service cable, which was illegally connected to the load of the premises.
3. It is further the case of the complainant that the total connected load of the impugned premises was assessed to be 8.720 KW for non-domestic purpose. Further, the members of the inspection team prepared the Inspection Report, Load Report and Seizure Memo. Based on these reports, the complainant raised a theft bill of Rs.13,45,321/- against the accused persons.
4. The complainant has alleged that the present case is a direct theft case and visual footage of the same was recorded and the inspection team seized one service cable of size 2 x 10 mm sq. and length of 1 meter (approx.). Thus, the complainant has contended that the accused persons acted dishonestly with an intention to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to it. It is also averred that the act of the accused no.1 falls within the ambit of Section 135, whereas the act of the accused no.2 Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 3 of 19 Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.18 17:34:25 +0530 falls within the ambit of Section 135 read with Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Summoning of the accused persons
5. Vide order dated 09.10.2020 and subsequent orders, both the accused were summoned. Copy of the complaint and the supporting documents were supplied to them.
6. After hearing arguments, notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C was given to the accused no.1 Jaswant on 05.06.2023 for commission of the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Further, notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C was also given to the accused no.2 Vikas on 05.06.2023 for commission of the offence under Section 135 read with Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Evidence of the complainant/BSES
7. In the complainant's evidence, four witnesses were examined i.e. PW-1 Mr. Amit Kumar Antil (Asstt Manager, BSES), PW-2 Mr. Somveer, (GET, BSES), PW-3 Mr. Rajesh Kumar (Senior AAO, BRPL Division) and PW-4 Mr. Ashutosh Kumar (Authorized Representative, BSES). The testimony of Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 4 of 19 Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.18 17:34:36 +0530 these witnesses are as under:
7.1 PW-1 deposed that on 11.01.2020 at about 06:45 AM, he alongwith Somveer -GET, Neeraj-Technician, Deepak-
Videographer from M/s Arora Photo Studio and Manoj Sharma- DGM and staff of Delhi Police visited and inspected the impugned premises i.e. Plot at A-43/1 and 44/1, Khasra No.147/11/2, Nirmal Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. PW-1 deposed that there was one person present at the time of the inspection, but he did not remember his name due to lapse of time; that at the time of inspection, one meter bearing no. 60068881 was found installed in the name of accused no.2 Vikas, but the accused persons were found indulging in direct theft of electricity from BSES service cable, illegally connected to the load of the premises; that an RO plant was running in the premises in question at the time of inspection; that the inspection team assessed the total connected load of the premises and the same was found to be 8.720 KW for running RO plant; and that they had asked the person who was present at the time of inspection, who disclosed his name as Jaswant. During his testimony, PW-1 could not identify the accused Jaswant due to Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 5 of 19 Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.18 17:34:44 +0530 lapse of time.
7.2 PW-1 further deposed that they had seized the illegal wires upto the possible length at the time of inspection, since the person present at the site had closed the gate and RO plant, therefore they could not seize the entire illegal wires from the site connected from BSES pole to the impugned premises; that they prepared Inspection Report Ex.PW-1/A, Load Report Ex.
PW-1/B and Seizure Memo Ex.PW-1/C at the site; that they had offered the said documents to the person present there, but he left the site after closing the door and did not receive the same; and that videography of the site was done by Deepak, Videographer. When the videography contained in the CD Ex.PW-1/D was played out, PW-1 identified the same and stated that the person present at the site, who disclosed his name as Jaswant, is also seen in the videography. Further, the Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-1/E. As per PW-1, a theft bill of Rs.13,45,321/- (Ex.PW-1/F) was prepared on the basis of the aforesaid reports. PW-1 identified the carbon copy of the Seizure Memo, which is Ex.P1, and the alleged illegal cable which is Ex.P2. He was cross-examined by the learned defence Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 6 of 19 Digitally signed HARLEEN by HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.12.18 17:34:51 +0530 counsel.
7.3 PW-2 deposed on the same lines as PW-1. Additionally, PW-2 deposed the length of the seized service cable as 2 x 10 sq. mm and length of approximately 1 meter. PW-2 was also cross-examined by the learned defence counsel. 7.4 PW-3 produced the consumption record pertaining to the electricity meter bearing no. 60068881 with CA No. 152355888 for the period from January, 2019 to January, 2021 (Ex. PW-3/A), which was sanctioned in the name of the accused no.2 Vikas. PW-3 also produced the latest electricity bill dated 30.10.2024 (Ex.PW-3/B) of the aforesaid electricity meter. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-3 stated that he did not prepare the consumption record Ex.PW-3/A. He admitted that Ex.PW-3/A could be prepared by anyone through editing. PW-3 denied having any personal knowledge of the present case.
7.5 PW-4 deposed that the present complaint was signed and filed by him on the basis of Power of Attorney; that vide GPA Ex.PW-4/A, he was authorized by the then CEO Mr. Arvinder Gujral to appear before the court on behalf of the Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 7 of 19 Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.18 17:34:57 +0530 complainant company. PW-4 was also cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused, during which he admitted not having any personal knowledge of the present case. Statement of both the accused under Section 351 BNSS (old Section 313 Cr.P.C)
8. On 03.04.2025 and 29.04.2025 respectively, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 351 BNSS, wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication by the complainant. On his part, the accused no.1 Jaswant stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of the inspection; that there was a valid electricity meter installed in the name of the accused no.2 Vikas; and that no theft of electricity had ever been committed. On his part, the accused no.2 Vikas also stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of the inspection, as he was in Jhajjar District, Haryana and also that the accused no.1 Jaswant was in JC at the time of inspection. Both the accused stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they had not committed any theft of electricity.
9. Although both the accused stated during their aforesaid statements that they wished to lead defence evidence, Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 8 of 19 Digitally signed HARLEEN by HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.12.18 17:35:04 +0530 they subsequently submitted on 23.05.2025 that they did not wish to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence evidence was closed on the said date. However, before the defence evidence was closed, an application was moved by the accused no.1 for summoning certain record from the jail. The said application was allowed by the learned predecessor of this court on 08.05.2025, after which the report/custody record of the accused no.1 was received from the jail and the same was taken on record. The said jail record shall be discussed hereinafter. Final Arguments
10. It was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that on 11.01.2020 at about 06:45 AM, the complainant conducted a raid/inspection at the impugned premises i.e. Plot No. A-43/1 & A-44/1,Kh No.147/11/2, Nirmal Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043 and during inspection, one meter bearing no. 60068881 was found installed at the site in the name of the accused no.2 Vikas. It was further argued that both the accused were found to be indulging in direct theft of electricity from BSES service cable, which was illegally connected to the load of the premises and that an RO Plant was Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 9 of 19 Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.18 17:35:11 +0530 running in the impugned premises. It was also argued that the videography has substantiated the allegations, which stand proved through the evidence of the witnesses.
11. Per contra, it was argued by the learned defence counsel that the falsity of the complainant's case is evident from the jail record summoned on behalf of the accused no.1 Jaswant, as the said accused was in jail/judicial custody as on the day of the inspection; that in order to rectify this blatant error in the case, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for impleading the father of the accused no.1 namely Balwant as the accused no.3 in the present case, but the said application was dismissed; and that the accused persons have never committed any theft of electricity. It was also argued that the accused no.2 Vikas resides at Jhajjar District, Haryana and he too was not present at the spot at the time of the inspection. Lastly, it was argued that the complainant has absolutely failed to prove its case against both the accused.
FINDINGS
12. Before proceedings further with deciding the present case, it is imperative to discuss as to whether the accused persons Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 10 of 19 Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.12.18 17:35:18 +0530 are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Electricity Act, 2003 or not. The said provision/Section is as under:
"Consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be."
13. In the present case, one electricity meter bearing no. 60068881 is stated to have been installed in the impugned premises in the name of the accused no.2 Vikas, and the premises was stated to be used by the accused no.1 Jaswant. The witnesses have also deposed about the same in their testimony.
14. The inspection of the impugned premises was conducted on 11.01.2020. It is the contention of the complainant that at the time of the inspection, the accused no.1 Jaswant was found to be the user of electricity in the impugned premises. The same is also mentioned in the memo of parties of the present complaint, in para 3 of the complaint and also at various other places. However, it is the stand of the accused no.1 that he was Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 11 of 19 Digitally signed HARLEEN by HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.12.18 17:35:24 +0530 not even present at the spot at that time and in fact, he was in jail/judicial custody as on 11.01.2020. To substantiate this, the accused no.1 moved an application for calling his custody record from Tihar Jail, wherein it was stated that from the year 2017 to 2021, he was in judicial custody in case FIR 876/2017 PS Ranhola under Section 302/307/34 IPC. This application was moved at the stage of defence evidence and the same was allowed on 08.05.2025. Accordingly, a report was called from the jail, after which a report dated 15.05.2025 of the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail No. 10, Rohini, New Delhi was received.
15. In the aforesaid report received from the jail qua the accused no.1 Jaswant, it was stated that the said accused was admitted in the jail in the aforesaid FIR; that he was released on interim bail on 19.05.2020 for a period of 15 days; that he was re-admitted in the said jail on 30.03.2021 and was subsequently, released on 08.07.2021 after securing bail. Thus, it appears from the aforesaid report that as on the date of the inspection i.e. 11.01.2020, the accused no.1 was in judicial custody. It is seen that during his testimony, PW-1 could not identify the accused no.1 due to lapse of time. This is when both PW-1 and PW-2 Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 12 of 19 Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.12.18 17:35:30 +0530 deposed that the person present at the spot at the time of inspection disclosed his name as Jaswant, and that the said person is also seen in the videography.
16. However, the complainant has not even examined the Videographer Deepak, for proving the videography contained in the CD Ex.PW-1/D. The Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, accompanying the said CD, also remains unproved for want of the testimony of the Videographer Deepak. The same weakens the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the accused no.1 purportedly being seen in the videography.
17. Strangely, at the stage of final arguments, the complainant moved an application under Section 358 of BNSS, 2023 (old Section 319 Cr.P.C) for impleading one Balwant (father of the accused no.1 Jaswant). As per the averments in the said application, "....the accused was running RO water Plant with the help of his father namely Sh. Balwant who is the user/owner of the premises in question. Therefore, Sh. Balwant is the necessary party in this case for the decision of the case ". The averments in the present application merely refer to "the accused", without specifying whether it is the accused no.1 or the accused no.2. Further, the said averments are in clear Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 13 of 19 Digitally signed HARLEEN by HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.12.18 17:35:37 +0530 contradiction to the averments in the present complaint, which states that the accused no.1 was the user of the impugned premises and the accused no.2 was its registered consumer. The aforesaid application fails to specify who the registered consumer is. In this regard, the testimony of PW-3 also does not help the case of the complainant. PW-3, who produced the consumption record Ex.PW-3/A, stated that the same was prepared by some other person i.e. Manish Bhardwaj, Commercial Officer. However, the complainant has failed to examine the said Commercial Officer. Even as such, PW-3 admitted in his cross- examination that he did not file any supporting Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. He further stated that "It is correct that there is nothing on the document Ex.PW-3/A to show that the document is of BSES. I do not have any personal knowledge of the present case. It is correct that the Ex.PW-3/A can be prepared by anyone through editing also".
18. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the complainant has absolutely failed to establish that the accused persons fall within the ambit of a consumer, as defined under Section 2 (15) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Even as regards the allegations made in the present complaint, the complainant has Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 14 of 19 Digitally signed HARLEEN by HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.12.18 17:35:43 +0530 failed to raise the presumption against the accused persons as provided under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The relevant provision is as follows:-
"Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorized by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer."
19. Even as regards the composition of the inspection team, the versions of the witnesses are not consistent. As per the complaint, the inspection team comprised of four persons i.e. Mr. Amit Kumar Antil, Assistant Manager (PW-1), Mr. Somveer, GET (PW-2), Mr. Neeraj, Technician and Mr. Deepak Jr., Videographer from M/s Arora Photo Studio. However, as per the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, the inspection team comprised of five persons i.e. PW-1, PW-2, Mr. Neeraj (Technician), Mr. Deepak Jr. (Videographer) and Mr. Manoj Sharma (DGM) as well as staff of Delhi Police. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 is inconsistent with the case of the complainant. Further, the DGM was not even cited as a witness by the complainant.
20. Furthermore, the two very material witnesses i.e. Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 15 of 19 Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.18 17:35:50 +0530 Mr. Neeraj (Technician) and Mr. Deepak Jr. (Videographer), who were members of the raiding/inspection team, have not been examined by the complainant. The same has deprived the accused persons of the opportunity to put questions to both these persons, who were crucial to the complainant's case. This omission has adversely affected the case of the complainant. As already discussed hereinabove, non-examination of the Videographer also casts a doubt on the videography contained in the CD Ex.PW-1/D.
21. As regards the purported illegal service cable allegedly seized from the spot at the time of the inspection, it is averred in the complaint that the same was of the size of 2 x 10 mm sq. and length of 1 meter (approx.). However, PW-1, who is stated to have been leading the inspection team, did not depose anything about the size of the said seized cable, and he deposed that "We had seized the illegal wires upto the possible length....". This makes it appear that there was more than one seized wire/cable, which is contrary to the averments in the complaint. Further, at the time when the said cable was produced in court in a gunny bag during the evidence of PW-1, the seal of Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 16 of 19 Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.18 17:35:56 +0530 the gunny bag was found to be in broken condition. Furthermore, when PW-2 was asked by the learned defence counsel in his cross-examination that the case property is the same wire used by BSES to provide a valid connection/meter, PW-2 responded by saying that "The wire which is used by BSES to provide connection/meter is identical/same". This, coupled with the broken seal of the case property, casts a serious doubt upon the authenticity of the case property/seized cable.
22. Even as regards the removal of the alleged service cable/illegal wire, it was stated by PW-1 during his cross- examination that they had called Operations and Maintenance for removal of the said cable. In this regard, PW-1 stated that " The distribution box contains lock. I do not have the key of the same. Vol. It remains with O & M (Operation and Maintenance). We had called O & M for the removal of said illegal wire. We had called O & M later by our DGM. I do not know whether our DGM had issued any letter or any phone call to call the O & M or the time of the same. I do not remember the time when O & M reached the spot. It is correct that the illegal wire does not bear any demarcation or number of inspection". Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 17 of 19 Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.18 17:36:04 +0530
23. As regards the distribution box and the seized wire, PW-2 has also similarly stated in his cross-examination that " I do not remember whether the distribution box was opened or closed or locked at the time of inspection. I do not remember whether any videography of the distribution box was done or not. Vol. The same might be done by the videographer. I do not remember whether the removal of illegal wire was covered in videography or not. I do not remember preparation of documents was covered in the videography or not. I do not remember the colour of the illegal wire which was removed from the inspected premises ". However, the present complaint does not mention anything about the O & M Department removing/seizing the service cable. In fact, it is stated in para 10 of the complaint that it was the inspection team which seized the service cable. Even as such, no witness from the O & M department has been cited by the complainant. This omission also makes the version of the complainant unreliable.
24. Thus, there is nothing on the record to support the contention of the complainant that theft of electricity was allegedly being committed by the accused persons through a Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 18 of 19 Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.12.18 17:36:10 +0530 service cable. The complainant has even failed to prove that the accused persons were users, as defined in the Electricity Act, 2003.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the allegations that the accused committed theft of electricity, as alleged. Consequently, the complainant has absolutely failed to raise the presumption under Section 135 of the Electricity Act against both the accused.
26. Accordingly, the accused no.1 Jaswant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The accused no.2 Vikas is also acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135 read with Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
27. In case the accused persons have deposited any amount in respect of the impugned theft bill, the same be refunded to them as per rules. Digitally signed by HARLEEN HARLEEN SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.12.18 17:36:18 +0530 Announced in the open court (HARLEEN SINGH) on this 18th day of ASJ: Special Electricity Court December, 2025 South West District Dwarka Courts, New Delhi Ct. Case No. 248/2020 BRPL Vs. Jaswant and Anr. Page No. 19 of 19