Delhi District Court
In The Case Of Vardhman Properties Ltd. vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 15 July, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Complaint Case No. 583/09
PS Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi
U/s 135 r/w/sec. 150 of Electricity Act, 2003
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
A company duly incorporated under
the companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi110019
and its Corporate, Legal & Enforcement Cell
at Andrews Ganj, Next to Andrews Ganj Market,
New Delhi - 110049
Through Sh. Binay Kumar, its authorised officer
...Complainant
Versus
1 M/s. Lala Banwari Lal Halwai (User)
Through its Proprietor/ Owner
2 Sh. Banwari Lal (R/C)
Shop No.12, Near Bus Stand, Main Market,
Okhla, New Delhi
...Accused
COMPLAINT INSTITUTED ON : 13.10.2009
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 14.07.2011
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 15.07.2011
JUDGMENT
1 The complainant company filed the present complaint u/s 135 r/w/sec. 150 & 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). According to the complainant, the accused committed an offence punishable u/sec. 135 r/w/sec. 150 of the Act and also to determine the civil liability as provided under the provisions of section 154 (5) of the Act. 2 2 Cognizance for offence was taken on a complaint filed by the complainant company BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. through its authorised officer.
3 The accused was summoned to face the complaint case u/sec. 135 of the Act by this court vide order dt. 04.11.2009 after recording the pre summoning evidence and hearing the arguments on summoning. Accused appeared and was granted bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/ with one surety of the like amount. Separate notice u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 The complainant company examined Sh. Bharat Pratap - Assistant Manager as PW1, Sh. Ashutosh Kumar - Assistant Manager (Legal) as PW2 and Sh. Ayaz Alam - GET as PW3. The statement of the accused was recorded u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating evidence against him. The accused wanted to lead evidence in defence, therefore, the accused was given an opportunity to lead evidence in defence. The accused in his defence examined Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Banwari Lal as DW1.
5 I have heard the Ld. counsel for accused represented by Sh.Surender Kumar and prosecution represented by Sh. P.M.Bhatt, counsel/ deemed P.P and have perused the entire records.
6 Before considering the facts and circumstances of this complaint case, it has to be seen and considered whether this court, being the special court 3 under the Act, can take cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec. 135 of the Act. Section 151 of the Act reads as under:
''Cognizance of offences - No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorised by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose:
Provided that the court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Provided further that a special court constituted under section 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.'' In the case of Vardhman Properties Ltd. Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 157 (2009)DLT 636, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that:
''The special electricity court can take cognizance of the offence u/sec. 135 of the Act without awaiting committal of the case to it by the Magistrate. Therefore, in the instant case when by the order dt. 07.04.2006, the Ld.ASJ took cognizance of the offence and summoned the petitioner for offence u/sec. 135 of the Act, the Ld.ASJ was exercising the powers u/sec. 151 of the Act.'' The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 06.02.2009 passed in Crl. MC 2059/2008 & Crl. MA 7669/2008 entitled Dalbir Singh Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Limited held that :
''Section 154 (1) mandates that every offence punishable under sections 135 to 140 & section 150 shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. Considering the fact that Section 154 (3) the Special Courts are expected to proceed with the trial of the complaints under sections 135 to 140 & Section 150 in a summary way, it is inconceivable that the Parliament intended that the cognizance of the offence should first be taken by the learned MM and thereafter the case committed to 4 the Special Court. Further Section 155 begins with the words ''Save as otherwise provided in this Act'' when it talks of the applicability of the Cr.PC. Therefore, on a collective reading of Section 135, 151, 154 (3) and 155 it is plain that as regards the trial of the complaint case under the Act, the intention of the Parliament is that it is the Special Court will take cognizance of the offences and proceed to try the case, to begin with, in a summary way.'
7 Further, it is to be considered whether the special electricity court is required to give reasons for proceeding with the trial in a summary way. Section 154 (3) reads as under :
''The Special Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) of section 260 or section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), try the offence referred to in sections 135 to 140 and section 150 in a summary way in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the said code and the provisions of sections 263 to 265 of the said Code shall, so far as may be, apply to such trial :
Provided that where in the course of a summary trial under this subsection, it appears to the Special court that the nature of the case is such that it is undesirable to try such case in summary way, the Special Court shall recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to rehear the case in the manner provided by the provisions of the said code for the trial of such offence:
Provided further that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for a Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.'' In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case Dalbir Singh (Supra) further held that :
''A plain reading of the above provision reveals that the intention of the Parliament was that cases concerning theft or illegal abstraction of electricity, attracting the offence under section 135 to 140 and section 150 of the Act, should be tried, to start with, in a summary way. Since the substantive portion of the above provision itself empowers the Special Court in this regard, it is unnecessary for the Special Court to give reasons for trying the case in a summary way. The procedure under section 154 (3) is indeed a departure from the procedure of trial of warrant cases under the Cr.PC Section 154 (3) contains a nonobstante clause which indicates that it is a 5 departure from the normal procedure. Even Section 155 of the Act which otherwise makes the entire Cr.PC applicable, begins with the words ''save as otherwise provided in this Act.''
8 After taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint, the accused was summoned to face the present complaint case. Accused appeared and was granted bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/ with one surety of the like amount. The notice u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused, however, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In this regard, I would refer the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) P. Ltd. Vs Sanjay ChaudharyI (2009) SLT 144, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that ''strong suspicion about commission of offence and involvement of accused is sufficient to frame charge.'' The statement of the accused was recorded u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. In this context, I would refer the judgment delivered in the case of Chander Dev Rai Vs State (NCT of Delhi) 156 (2009) DLT 229 (DB), it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that ''Examination of accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is not a mere formality. Answers given by him have practical utility for criminal courts. Apart from affording an opportunity to the accused to examine incriminating circumstances against him also help the court in appreciating the entire evidence adduced in the court during the trial.'' 9 Admittedly, the accused is now facing trial and the complainant seeks to prove the complaint case through circumstances appearing against him. A criminal charge could be proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the requirement is that circumstances incriminating in nature must be proved by cogent evidence and then circumstances so proved must form the complete chain so as to be not consistent with the innocence of accused. In 6 this context, a reliance can be had upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 1970 SC 1286 held that:
'' There is no predetermined way of proving any fact. The fact is said to have been proved where after considering the matter before it the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the specification that it exists.'' In the case of Kundan Lal Rallaram Vs Custodian Evacuee Property, Bombay AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1316, it was held that :
''...The evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e. oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by opposite party; it may comprise circumstantial evidence or presumptions of law or fact....'' In the case of M/s Sodhi Transport Co. and another Vs. State of U.P. and another reported as AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1099, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
''A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for party in whose favour it exists.''
10 Let us firstly examine whether the present complaint case has been filed by duly authorized representative on behalf of the complainant company. Sh.Ashutosh Kumar, Assistant Manager (Legal) being an authorized representative (hereinafter referred to as 'AR') of the complainant company entered into witness box and examined himself as PW2. PW2, during examination in chief, deposed that he is working with the complainant company i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. as Assistant Manager Legal. He has been authorised by the complainant to file and pursue the cases on behalf of the complainant company in the special court including the present case. He 7 has been authorised to do so by GPA dt. 18.08.2009 by Sh.Arun Kanchan, Chief Executive Officer of the complainant company in the capacity of Manager U/sec. 2 (24) of the company's Act. PW2 proved the GPA and exhibited it as Ex.PW2/1 (OSR). PW2 further deposed that the present complaint has been filed by the previous AR of the complainant company Sh.Binay Kumar which bears his signature at point A already exhibited as Ex.CW1/1. PW2 proved the letter of authority of Sh.Binay Kumar already exhibited as Ex.CW1/3. PW2 also deposed that he has been working with the previous AR Sh.Binay Kumar since last three years and he identified his signature on the present complaint. PW2 further deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the facts of the case and he has deposed as per record provided to him by the complainant company. During cross examination, PW2 deposed that Sh.Arun Kanchan, CEO of the complainant company was having the powers on behalf of the complainant company to authorise him to appear in this case for pursuing this case for the complainant company before the Court. PW2 further deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge of the present complaint case. He has not visited the site. PW2 denied the suggestion that a false & fabricated case against the accused has been filed. Perusal of Ex.CW1/3 dt. 23.10.2006 reveals that Sh.Lalit Jalan, Manager u/sec. 2 (24) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Chief Executive Officer of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. authorized Sh.Binay Kumar, legal officer with the complainant company respectively to institute and/or defend legal proceedings of whatsoever nature before the Special Courts and to sign & verify plaints, affidavits, written statements, petitions of claims, objections, memorandum of appeal & petition and application of all kinds and to file them in any such courts or office apart from other authorisation as mentioned in the said document Ex.CW1/3. Perusal of G.P.A. 8 Ex.PW2/1 also reveals that Sh. Arun Kanchan - CEO also authorized Sh. Ashutosh Kumar working as Assistant Manager (Legal) with the complainant company to act, appear and plead on behalf of the complainant company in all courts in India, to sign vakalatnama and appoint advocates, to execute, sign, draft all types of pleadings, application, affidavits, legal documents, to do all other lawful acts & deeds which may be necessary to be done for the progress and in the course of proceedings and the other prosecutions of all the cases, suits and proceedings, etc. PW2 has also identified the signatures of Sh. Binay Kumar in the complaint at point A in Ex.CW1/1. The complainant is rendering services for distribution of electricity to the public and all the complaint cases by the company are being filed through the authorised representatives on its behalf. Whereas, the accused has not led any evidence and failed to prove that the ARs have not been authorised by the complainant company to file and represent the present complaint case. Thus, I hold that Sh.Binay Kumar, AR and Sh.Ashutosh Kumar, Assistant Manager legal of the complainant company are duly authorised and competent to file and represent the present complaint case on behalf of the complainant company. 11 Now, let us secondly examine whether members of the inspection team were the authorised officers of the complainant company to carry out inspection at the premises in question. Sh. Bharat Pratap - Assistant Manager deposed in his examination in chief that on 03.08.2009 at around 12:30 PM, he along with Sh. Mohd. Ayaz Aalam - Trainee Engineer, Sh. Om Prakash Jaiswal - DET and Delhi Police officials inspected the premises bearing shop No.12, Okhla Main Market, Near Bus Stand, New Delhi. Copy of the notification No.F11(93)/2003/Power/229 dated 12.09.2007 filed by the complainant 9 reveals that in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) read with Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification No. F.No.U11030/2/2003/UTL dt. 20.02.2004, the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi authorised the technical officials not below the rank of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Manager and above working in the departments dealing with distribution (District/ Zones) commercial and enforcement functions in BSES Yamuna Power Limited, BSES Rajdhani Power Limited and North Delhi Power Limited as 'Authorised Officers' for the purpose of clause (a) and clause (b) of sub section (2) of section 135 of the aforesaid Act in respective areas of the said companies in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. In view of the above notification and foregoing discussions, I hold that Sh. Bharat Pratap - Assistant Manager was the 'Authorised Officer' to carry out the inspection of premises in question under the provisions of section 135 of the Act on 03.08.2009. 12 What aspects and evidence have to be considered and examined for ascertaining mode of theft of electricity. Here, I would place a reliance upon the judgment dated 23.10.2007 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Appeal No.531/2007 entitled Mukesh Rastogi Vs North Delhi Power Limited, it was held that even if the inspection was not a valid inspection, complainant had a right to prove theft of electricity done by the appellant irrespective of the status of the inspection. The invalid inspection does not make theft of electricity as a noncrime. Theft of electricity remains the crime irrespective of fact that the inspection is valid or not. Supreme Court in State & ors. Vs. N.M.T.Joy Immaculate 2004 (5) SSC 729 observed that admissibility or otherwise of a piece of evidence has to be judged having regard to the 10 provisions of the Evidence Act. Neither Evidence Act nor Cr.P.C. or any other law excludes relevant evidence on the ground that it was obtained under an illegal search of seizure. Even if the inspection was not conducted by an officer as designated under the notification dated 31st March, 2004, the members of the inspection team, who had visited the site and found the electricity being stolen are competent witnesses to depose in the court about the theft of electricity and the manner in which electricity was being stolen. It was further held that tapping of electricity could be seen standing outside the buildings since wires going on LT main to the building through a window could be seen. The photographs of the spot were taken by the photographer showing wires going from LT main to the window, from window to meter place then to cut out and from cut out to the house and business place of the appellant. The visit of the enforcement staff proved by the defence witnesses themselves who stated that persons from electricity department did come on that day and the appellant was at the spot at that time. It is his own case that members of NDPL visited the house on that day, thus, the inspection of the premises by enforcement staff of the NDPL and the photographs showing his premises cannot be doubted.
13 It was also held by the Hon'ble High court in the aforesaid case that in all cases of theft of electricity, the stolen material is simultaneously consumed by the person involved in theft. Electricity is not such a material which can be kept stored for future use. In normal cases, theft of articles case property is understood by the stolen material. In excise cases, the case property is liquor seized, in case of NDPS the case property is the narcotics drugs seized. In that sence, in case of theft of electricity there can be no case property as such, 11 since the stolen property i.e. electricity is simultaneously consumed. The enforcement staff therefore seizes the material through which the theft is committed. Mere non production on the wires cannot fail the prosecution, if the theft of electricity is proved by cogent evidence otherwise. It must be kept in mind that complaint is filed by NDPL which is basically a distribution company. The officials working in enforcement department are not trained in investigation and since this is new job for them, it may take some time for them to learn the technicalities of investigation. Merely because there is lapse on the part of the complainant company not to retain or not to produce the wires in the court through which the electricity was being stolen cannot fail the case if it is sufficiently proved by other evidences that electricity was being stolen by hooking wires directly to LT main. Had the electricity been going to the appellant's premises through meter, the easiest way to prove it was by producing the electricity bills paid by the appellant to the complainant company. The very fact that the appellant did not prove a single bill showing payment of electricity charges fortifies the plea of the complainant company that electricity was being used by the appellant directly from LT main by committing theft. Paid electricity bills would have been the best evidence to show that the appellant was using electricity through meter. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus was on the appellant to produce and prove such bills paid for the use of electricity. Inspection of the premises is merely a mean to detect the theft of electricity and to find the means by which the electricity was being stolen. Inspection report is merely a piece of evidence and inspection report is not considered as a conclusive proof of the theft of electricity. The theft of electricity has to be proved by the complainant in the court by cogent evidence, therefore, the validity of the inspection report 12 cannot be attached too much of importance. Similarly, non production of the single core PVC wires through which electricity was being stolen is not a serious infirmity in this case since there is sufficient oral testimony supported by photographs showing the theft of electricity.
14 The issue involved in the present criminal complaint case is on the point of detection of theft of electricity which is the crucial aspect. Let us finally examine whether the accused has committed the offence u/sec. 135 of the Act. It is well settled principle that prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant through its witnesses PW1 to PW3 has tried to prove the case against the accused that the accused was committing direct theft of electricity at the premises in question. Whereas, the accused has taken the defence that he never committed any theft of electricity at the premises in question. PW1 deposed in his examination in chief that they found that there was a sweet shop in the premises in question which was being run by Sh. Banwari Lal and the name of the sweet shop may be Lal Banwari Lal Sweet Shop, as he remembers. At the time of inspection, the accused Banwari Lal was present at the spot and PW1 identified the accused Banwari Lal in the court. PW3 also deposed in his examination in chief that the premises in question belongs to Banwari Lal Halwai and identified the accused Banwari Lal present in the court. The accused, in his statement u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he was the tenant at the shop in question and he was present at site on the date of inspection. Meaning thereby, identification of the premises in question and the accused is not disputed. The accused stated in the statement u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. that the inspection team with Police Officials came at site on 03.08.2009. Therefore, the 13 inspection of the premises in question is also not disputed. PW1 deposed in his examination in chief that they found that there was one single phase electronic meter installed in the said premises. PW3 also deposed in his examination in chief that on reaching the premises, they found that there was an electricity meter installed at the premises. The accused in his statement u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. also stated that he has been regularly paying the electricity bills for the electricity consumption used by him through the meter installed at the shop in question. Meaning thereby, it is an admitted fact that the electricity meter was also found installed at the premises in question. 15 PW1 deposed in his examination in chief that they found that the accused was committing direct theft of electricity by tapping from BSES pole with the help of illegal wire which was coming over the top of the roof of the said premises which was further connected to change over switch then to the connected load of the premises and the meter was bypassed. PW3 deposed in his examination in chief that the accused was using the electricity by bypassing the meter with the help of illegal wire. The said illegal wire was coming over the top of the roof of the said premises which was further connected to change over switch and then to the connected load of the premises. PW1 and PW3 also deposed that they seized the electricity meter from the spot which was bypassed by the accused for committing theft of electricity. One sealed plastic was produced and opened in this court which contained one carbon copy of seizure memo Ex.P1 and also one single phase electronic meter bearing No.23907398, S. No. 12 and the new K number of the connection is 2541 C 5140688 exhibited as Ex.P2. PW1 and PW3 also identified the aforesaid electricity meter which they had seized from the spot 14 during the inspection. The inspection team also tried to seize the illegal wires from the spot during the inspection but due to resistance, they could not do so. The inspection team also checked the connected load of the premises which was running directly and bypassing the meter. The total connected load found was approximately 11 KW for commercial purpose i.e. for the sweet shop. The total connected load consisted of deep fridgers, grinders, electric water motor, fans, ceiling fans and pedestrial fans, tubelights, bulb, CFL etc. as deposed by PW1 & PW3. The team members also clicked the photographs of the inspection with the help of digital camera. The inspection report Ex.CW2/1, meter report Ex.CW2/2, load report Ex.CW2/3, seizure memo Ex.CW2/4, photographs Ex.CW2/5 and CD of photography as Ex.CW2/6 were prepared at site which have also been proved by PW1 and PW3. During cross examination, PW1 & PW3 deposed that they offered all the reports to the consumer/ accused at site but the same was refused to receive and sign by accused. PW1 denied the suggestion that during the inspection the load was running through the meter and the meter was in O.K. Condition. PW1 also deposed in his crossexamination that seizure memo was prepared by Sh. Mohd. Ayaz Alam and PW1 signed the seizure memo at site. PW1 further deposed in his crossexamination that all the documents were prepared by Mohd. Ayaz Alam in his presence at the spot. PW3 deposed in his cross examination that he does not remember whether the meter in question was in running condition or not but the meter was bypassed and refixed during inspection. PW3 also deposed in his crossexamination that they requested the police officials to help them to seize the illegal wire but due to consumer resistance the same could not be done. PW3 denied the suggestion that they have not seized the illegal wire as the same is not in use by the accused. 15 16 The accused in his statement u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that Bharat Pratap - AM/ PW1, Om Prakash Jaiswal - DET and Alam - TE/ PW3 with the police officials came at site on the date of inspection i.e. 03.08.2009. The accused also admitted that the photographs were taken by the officials of the complainant at the shop in question. DW1 is the son of the accused also admitted in his examination in chief that on 03.08.2009, some officials of the BSES came to the shop in question of his father and had taken some photographs and he was present at the spot. DW1 in his crossexamination deposed that he is working with his father in the shop in question. There were 67 persons who inspected the premises in question. DW1 also admitted in his crossexamination that the photographs Ex.CW2/5 pertains to his shop bearing No.12, near Bus stand, Okhla which is in question. DW1 further admitted in his crossexamination that the meter shown in the photographs pertains to K number 2541 C 2080763 belongs to his shop. DW1 categorically admitted in his crossexamination that the photographs marked as Mark A shows that there is a cut before service line of the meter. DW1 also admitted that meter number 23907398 was removed by the inspection team in his presence. DW1 further admitted in his crossexamination that during the inspection, the inspection team was accompanied by Delhi Police. Ex. DW1/1 is the electricity bill for the month of Novembor2009 proved by DW1 which is for the subsequent period of the inspection, therefore, the same can not be considered for determination of theft of electricity as 03.08.2009. It reveals from the photographs Ex.CW2/5 and the CD of photography Ex.CW2/6 that the illegal wire is coming to the shop in question through which the meter bypassed for consuming the electricity illegally and directly from BRPL supply by the accused on 03.08.2009. Therefore, I have found from the testimony of 16 PW1 to PW3 that the testimony of PW1 to PW3 has the credibility and the complaint also corroborated by the testimony of PW1 to PW3. The accused have miserably failed to prove that they were not committing direct theft of electricity at the premises in question i.e. shop No.12, Near Bus Stand, Main Market, Okhla, New Delhi on 03.08.2009. Thus, I find that there is no reason not to accept the circumstances and the aforesaid evidence proved by the complainant through its witnesses examined as PW1 to PW3 on the point of direct theft of electricity. In BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Saurashtra Color Tones Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 161 (2009) DLT 28 (FB), it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that ''Electricity is a public property. Law in its majesty benignly protects public property and behoves everyone to respect public property.'' 17 For the foregoing reasons discussed above in details, to my considered opinion, the circumstances and evidence proved by the complainant company established the involvement of the accused in the offence of direct theft of electricity. The complainant has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The present complaint case is squarely covered within the provisions of section 135 of the Act and also the aforesaid judgment in the case of Mukesh Rastogi (Supra). Thus, I convict the accused M/s. Lala Banwari Lal Halwai and Banwari Lal u/sec. 135 r/w/sec.150 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Announced in the open ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
court on 15.07.2011 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
17
CC No.583/09
15.07.2011
Present AR for the complainant
Accused in person
Vide separate judgment of the day, the accused M/s. Lala
Banwari Lal Halwai and Banwari Lal are convicted u/sec. 135 r/w/sec.150 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The copy of the judgment be made available to the complainant and the convicts immediately.
Upon request, to come up for arguments on the point of the sentence and determination of civil liability on 21.07.2011.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ASJ/SPL.COURT(ELECT.)SOUTH 15.07.2011