Delhi District Court
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Rajeev Rai & Anr. on 31 January, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Complaint Case No. : 234/12
Police Station : Jamia Nagar
U/s : 135 & 138 of Electricity Act, 2003
Unique ID No. : 02406 RO183082012
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Versus Rajeev Rai & Anr.
AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES
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 and Enforcement
Cell at Andrews Ganj,
Near Andrews Ganj Market,
New Delhi110049.
Acting through Ashutosh Kumar,
(Authorised Officer)
...Complainant
Versus
Sh. Nand Kumar Rai (R/C)
H.No.21/10, Khasra No.111 of 113,
Ground Floor, Rajpur Extension,
New Delhi110074.
...Accused
Complaint instituted on : 26.07.2012
Judgment reserved on : 28.01.2017
Judgment pronounced on : 31.01.2017
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 1 of 24
2
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 13.01.2010 at about 01:35
p.m., an inspection was carried out by the officers of the complainant
company namely, Sh. Ashok Kumar - Senior Manager, Sh. Kanhaiya
Lal - Senior Shift Officer, Sh. Hemank Kumar - DET at the premises
i.e. H.No.21/10, Kh. No.111 to 113, Ground Floor, Raj Pur Extension,
New Delhi110074 and accused Nand Kumar Rai found to be the
registered consumer of electricity in the said premises. It is further
mentioned in the complaint that joint inspection team conducted the
inspection and observed that at the time of inspection one single phase
meter bearing no.13439952 with current reading 8047 Kwh was found
installed at the site, all the seals of meter were found intact but the RTC
and internal data of the meter was found disturbed and failed, date and
time shown by the meter was 02:01:00; 08:50:03 whereas the actual date
and time of the inspection was 13.01.2010; 1:38:10. It is further
mentioned in the complaint that said meter bearing no.13439952 was
seized in bag no. 321837 with seal no.024631 at site and sent to BRPL
laboratory for further analysis and supply of electricity was restored
through a new meter bearing No.21167391 by O & M Metering
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 2 of 24
3
Department. It is also mentioned in the complaint that accused was
indulging in theft of electricity interalia in dishonest abstraction of
electricity and inspection team assessed the total connected load which
was found to be 11.726 KWs for domestic purpose. It is further
mentioned in the complaint that inspection report including meter detail
report, load report and seizure memo were prepared at the site and
necessary videography was also conducted at the spot by Sh. Sumer
Videographer.
2. It is also mentioned in the complaint that upon investigation of the
meter, vide its report No.BRPL/10/4710 dated 29.01.2010, following
observations were made:
(a) Plastic seals was found OK.
(b) LCD and Meter LED were found OK.
(c) Current date shown by the meter was 18.01.2000 where as the
actual date 29.01.2010.
(d) MD history date found occurred more than once in a month.
(e) Output neutral terminal melted.
3. It was further concluded by the testing lab that the aforesaid evidences
proved that meter was subjected frequently to abnormal external
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 3 of 24
4
injections like Electro Static Discharge (ESD)/High Frequency (HF)
was done for the purpose of manipulating the consumption. It is also
mentioned in the complaint that on the basis of findings of the testing
lab, a show cause notice dated 13.01.2010 was issued to the accused to
show cause as to why the action against him should not be initiated for
dishonest abstraction of energy and to file reply of the same by
01.02.2010 and to attend the personal hearing on 08.02.2010. It is
further mentioned in the complaint that accused Nand Kumar Rai as
well as Rajeev Rai attended the personal hearing on 08.02.2010 and that
vide note sheet dated 08.02.2010, they submitted that they had been
residing at the premises in question for the last 08 years and they denied
the charges that any tampering had been done with the meter and also
submitted that there was short circuit in outgoing cable of the meter in
July, 2009 and the meter was changed at that time and finally, the
Assessing Officer Sh. Ritu Raj Sinha passed speaking order vide order
dt.15.03.2010, thus, accused was causing wrongful loss to the
complainant and wrongful gain to himself and was thus acting
dishonestly.
4. It is also mentioned in the complaint that it was a case of dishonest
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 4 of 24
5
abstraction of energy and theft bill as per DERC Regulations and tariff
order was raised by the complainant for Rs.42,708/ with due date as
08.04.2010 and same was served upon the accused but he failed to pay
the said theft bill, hence the present complaint.
5. The case was fixed for presummoning evidence and summons were
issued to both the accused. They appeared alongwith their counsel on
17.10.2012 and were granted bail by the ld. Predecessor of this court.
Vide order dated 14.12.2012 by the ld. Predecessor of this court, the
proceedings against against accused No.1/Rajeev Rai were dropped.
6. Vide order dated 21.01.2013, notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against
accused Nand Kumar Rai for the offence punishable u/s. 135 & 138 r/w
Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial on the ground that he had not tampered with the meter
and not abetted any other accused for committing theft of electricity.
Accused further answered that sparking in the meter was noticed by him
and thereafter he made a complaint telephonically to the BRPL Office at
Chhattarpur, New Delhi as well as to the Customer Care Number.
Accused further answered that there was no deliberate tampering with
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 5 of 24
6
the meter and he is not liable to pay any loss or damage to the
complainant company.
7. Complainant, in support of its case, examined eight witnesses.
8. Sh. Saurabh (PW1) - Testing Engineer from laboratory appeared and
deposed that on 29.01.2010 he tested the meter bearing no. 13439952 in
lab and upon testing the said meter it was observed by him that current
date 18.01.2000 was shown on the actual date 29.01.2010, maximum
demand history found occurred more than once in a month and hence on
the basis of said observation, he concluded vide lab report Ex.CW2/G
that meter was got disturbed and this happens due to external injection
such as electrical static discharge (ESD), Extra High Voltage (EHV) and
High Frequency (HF).
9. During his crossexamination, he replied that whenever any external
device is used, Real Time Clock automatically gets disturbed. He
further replied that meter records consumption of energy even after
disturbance of the Real Time Clock. He further replied that the display
of real time clock is not related to backup battery but it gets its
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 6 of 24
7
operation through direct supply of electric energy to it. He could not
remembered the data of maximum demand history. He further denied
suggestion that there was a sparking in the meter due to which its
functioning went out of order.
10. Shri Kanhaiya Lal (PW2) Shift Officer, who was a raiding team member
and examined to prove the inspection. He deposed that on 13.01.2010 at
about 1.30 p.m. he alongwith Sh. Ashok KumarSenior Manager, Shri
Hemant KumarDET, Shri MahenderLineman and Shri Sumer
Videographer visited and inspected the premises bearing no. 21/10,
Khasra No. 111113, Ground Floor, Rajpur Extension, New Delhi. He
further deposed that at the time of inspection one number of single phase
electronic meter bearing no. 13439952 was found installed at site. He
further deposed that the seals of the meter were found intact however the
real time clock and internal data of the meter was disturbed and failed.
He further deposed that the date and time shown by the meter in
question was 02.01.2000, 08.50.03 whereas the actual date and time was
13.01.2010, 01.38.10 hence the inspection team booked the case of
suspected DAE and the meter was removed from site by O & M
Metering Department and sent to the laboratory for further analysis. He
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 7 of 24
8
further deposed that the supply was restored through a new meter
bearing no. 21167391. He further deposed that the connected load of
the premises was found to be 11.726 KW for domestic purpose. He
further deposed that son of accused was present at the time of inspection
and entire inspection was carried in his presence. He proved the
inspection report including meter details. load report prepared and
seizure memo at site as Ex.CW2/A, Ex.CW2/B and Ex.CW2/C. He
identified CD containing the videography of inspection process as
Ex.CW2/E.
11. During his crossexamination, he replied that as the RTC of the meter
was failed, therefore, it was booked as suspected DAE and meter was
sent to the laboratory for further analysis. He further replied that the old
meter was seized and a new meter was restored in the presence of son of
the accused. He further replied that there was resistance by the son of
the accused while conducting the inspection. He further replied that the
meter was not opened at site. He further replied that the electricity bill
was seen by the inspection team as to ascertain and verify the particulars
of the accused peratianing to the electricity connection. He further
replied that there are various reasons for failure of Real time Clock
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 8 of 24
9
(RTC). He could not admit or deny if the RTC can be failed due to high
voltage. He further replied that no remote was found connected to meter
in question. He denied the suggestion that due to weak battery, the RTC
of the meter was failed. He further replied that consumption is recorded
in the meter despite the failure of RTC of the meter. He further denied
the suggestion that due to technical defect of the meter, the RTC of the
meter may be disturbed.
12. Sh. Ritu Raj Sinha (PW3) was the assessing Officer, who proved
speaking order dt. 15.03.2010 as Ex.CW2/I, vide which it was
concluded to be a case of DAE. During his crossexamination, he
replied that he did not see the meter physically and had perused various
documents before passing the speaking order. He could not depose as to
the fact whether he had checked the consumption pattern of the new
meter installed at the site. He further replied that the consumption
pattern was calculated for the period from December 2008 to December
2009 which found to be 163 units per month i.e. 32% of the assessed
consumption based on the connected load found at the time of
inspection.
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 9 of 24
10
13. Sh. Ashok Kumar (PW4) Deputy General Manager, was also a raiding
team member. He deposed almost simlar facts as deposed by PW2.
He identified the CD containing the videography of inspection. He
further deposed that show cause notice was prepared by him and proved
the same as Ex.CW2/F. He further deposed that the show cause notice
was served to the son of the accused. He identified the meter bearing
no. 13439952 as the same which was seized at site and proved the said
electronic meter as Ex.P3.
14. During crossexamination, he replied that meter in question was seized
at the spot and submitted the same to the office of the complainant. He
further replied that the old meter was seized and a new meter was
restored in the presence of son of the accused. He further replied that
there are various reasons for failure of Real Time Clock (RTC). He
further replied that no remote was found connected to meter in question.
He further replied that the consumption was recorded in the meter
despite the failure of RTC of the meter.
15. Sh. A. S. Menon (PW5) Deputy General Manager, BRPL, was
examined to prove the theft bill. He deposed that he prepared the theft
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 10 of 24
11
bill after considering the inspection report, load report and speaking
order and on the basis of formula given under the DERC regulations. He
proved the theft bill as Ex. CW2/J. On being crossexamined, he
answered that he was not a member of inspection team. He further
answered that he relied upon the observation given by the Assessing
Officer in the speaking order.
16. Sh. Sumer (PW6) Videographer from M/s. Arora Photo Studio, was
examined to prove the videography of inspection. He deposed that he
alongwith inspection team visited the premises in question and
conducted the videography of inspection and connected load on the
direction of Sh. Ashok Kumar. He proved the videography containing
in the CD as Ex. CW2/E.
17. Sh. Pankaj Kumar Tandon (PW7) was the Authorized Representative of
the complainant company. He proved the complaint and letter of
authority in his favour.
18. Sh. Ashish Kumar (PW 8), Engineer from R& D Pal Mohan Electronics,
who deposed that he had knowledge of Kaifa meter. He further deposed
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 11 of 24
12
that the meter is preprogrammed to record the consumption of the
electricity. He further deposed that the meter can be tampered by
opening the meter as well as without opening the same from outside by
using high electrostatic interference. He further deposed that in case of
use of external device for electrostatic discharge/extra high voltage
external device, the maximum demand of the meter gets reset and can be
stored in multiple times in meter memory for any given month and the
RTC (Real Time Clock) of the meter may also got disturbed. He further
opined that that in the present case, the RTC (Real Time Clock) of the
meter in question might failed due to application of abnormal external
injection such as ESD (Electro Static Discharge)/EHV (Extra High
Voltage)/HF (High Frequency) and due to this application, the RTC of
the meter in question (Kaifa Meter) showed the wrong date and meter
MD history found occurred more than once in a month.
19. During crossexamination, he replied that MDI of the meter indicates
the maximum load used by it at a given time. He further deposed that if
the meter shows wrong date due to RTC failure it means that the RTC is
corrupted due to application of external high voltages devices. He
further replied that the accuracy is perfect if the range of correctness of
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 12 of 24
13
the meter is between 1 to +1. He further replied that there are very rare
chance that in case case of weak battery, the RTC will fail. He further
replied that after failure of RTC, the data of meter can be downloaded.
20. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused Nand Kumar Raid and
his statement U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately. Accused
Nand Kumar Rai denied the evidence as false and claimed to be
innocent person on the ground that the date and time of the meter in
question was disturbed due to internal defect of old and weak backup
of the said meter and submitted that the consumption pattern of both the
meters prior to inspection and after the inspection was as usual and
relied upon the consumption pattern of the energy for the period March
2009 to January 2010 and March 2010 to January 2011 including 12
electricity bills marked as Mark X (Colly).
21. It is argued by ld. counsel for complainant company that on 13.01.2010,
the Enforcement team visited the premises of accused bearing no.
H.No.21/10, Kh. No.111 to 113, Ground Floor, Raj Pur Extension, New
Delhi110074. It was found by the team that the load of 11.72 KW is
being used against the sanctioned load of 2 KW under the domestic
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 13 of 24
14
category. At the time of inspection, the real time clock (RTC) of the
meter found failed i.e. current date and time shown by the meter was
02:01:00; 08:50:03 hours whereas the actual date and time of the
inspection was 13.01.2010; 1:38:10 hours. It is submitted that since the
RTC of the meter was failed, case of suspected theft registered against
the accused. The meter in question was removed and the supply of
electricity in the premises of accused was restored through a new
electricity meter bearing no. 21167391. The suspected meter was sent
to the NABL accredited laboratory. It is further argued that a show
cause notice dated 13.01.2010 was issued and in response to the notice,
the accused Nand Kumar Rai vide letter dated 25.01.2010 submitted that
the meter was found intact and the seals of the meter were also found
intact as per the inspection report and further submitted that there was a
short circuit which was reported vide complaint no. 429 and 991 dated
12.07.2009 and the fault in the meter was rectified by one man thereafter
both accused Nand Kumar Rai and Rajiv Rai attended the personal
hearing on 08.02.2010 and denied the charges of tampering the meter in
question.
22. It is further argued by ld. counsel for the complaint company that in
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 14 of 24
15
support of its case, complainant company have examined 8 witnesses
and they have proved that at the time of inspection, the RTC of the
meter found failed and as per the lab report, the meter in question was
subject to electrostatic discharge/high frequency device to suppress the
recording of consumption by the meter. It is further argued that the
consumption pattern record found from 19.12.2008 to 25.12.2009 which
shows the average recorded consumption of 163 units per month and the
same has been found as 32% of the assessed consumption. It is further
argued by ld. counsel for the complainant company that at the time of
inspection, the son of the accused namely Rajiv Rai was present and the
entire inspection was carried out in his presence as deposed by PW2.
It is further argued that it is deposed by PW3 Sh. Ritu Raj Sinha that
both the accused persons have attended personal hearing and signed the
notesheet which is Ex.CW2/H. It is further argued that complainant
company have examined the PW8 Sh. Ashish Kumar who has
submitted that "in case of use of external device for electrostatic
discharge/extra high voltage external device, the maximum demand of
the meter get reset and can be stored in multiple times in meter
immediately for any given month and the RTC (Real Time Clock) of the
meter may also got disturbed and this happened in this case also". It is
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 15 of 24
16
further argued that the said witness is crossexamined by counsel for
accused but nothing susbtantiative has come out of record to help the
accused.
23. Lastly, it is argued by counsel for complainant company that the identity
of the accused Nand Kumar Rai and the premises is not in dispute. The
connection of the accused with premises in question is also not disputed
and that the guilt of accused is established on the conclusion of the lab
report and consumption pattern and relying upon the testimony of Sh.
Saurabh (PW1), it is submitted that the lab report Ex.CW2/G records
the observations as under:
"(1) Meter showing current date 18.01.2000 on the actual date 29.01.2010.
(2) MD history date found occurred more than once in a month.
Conclusion: Above evidence proof that meter gets disturbed and this happen if
subjected frequently by abnormal external injection such as ESD/EHV/HF."
24. On the other hand, ld. counsel for accused has vehemently opposed the
allegations against the accused and contented that the present case is an
abuse of power by the complainant company as the case was booked on
mere suspicion with preconceived notion of DAE. It is argued by
counsel for accused that present case was initiated by the complainant
company when the accused noted a spark in the meter and made a
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 16 of 24
17
complaint to the complainant company telephonically. It is further
argued that there is no deliberate tampering of meter by the accused. It
is further argued by counsel for accused that in this case there is
violation of rules of DERC. It is further argued that date and time of
meter in question was disturbed due to internal defect of old and weak
battery back up of meter. It is further argued that at the time of
inspection, the physical appearance of the meter found to be OK as it is
the case of the complainant company that all the seal on the meter found
intact. It is argued by counsel for accused that it is wrongly mentioned
in the speaking order that the pre and post consumption shows the
difference of 32% of the assessed consumption. It is submitted that in
the several cases as well as at the time of recording of statement of
accused, copies of bills for the relevant time have been placed on record
alongwith the chart showing the pre and post consumption which shows
the similar pattern that the old meter as well as that the new meter
installed by the complainant company.
25. Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that it has been held in
number of cases by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Appex Court
that only due to RTC failure, the DAE is not established and it may only
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 17 of 24
18
be a suspected case of DAE which the complainant company has to
prove on the basis of cogent evidence in their favour.
26. It is further argued by ld. counsel for accused that in response to the
show cause notice, accused appeared before the officials of the
complainant company and submitted that he had made a complaint of
sparking in the meter for the month of SeptemberOctober and the spark
in the meter may lead to RTC failure. It is further argued by ld. counsel
for accused that the warranty of the meter was expired and it has come
in the crossexamination of witnesses of the complainant company that a
weak battery in the meter may also be cause of RTC failure.
27. It is further argued by ld. counsel for accused that it is the case of the
complainant company that some external device has been used for
committing DAE but no remote/device which is a crucial evidence in
this case is produced from the possession/custody of the accused. It is
further argued that there are no basis of showing the difference in pre
consumption and postconsumption to that of 32% of assessed
consumption.
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 18 of 24
19
28. Ld. counsel for accused has submitted that he has placed on record the
bills for the relevant time alongwith the chart showing the pre and post
consumption which is almost the same. Ld. counsel for accused have
placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
case title as Bhasin Motors (I) P.Ltd. Vs. N.D.P.L. decided on
21.05.2007. The relevant extract of judgment is produced as under:
"Para 12. The first issue to be considered is whether there is
conclusive evidence to show that the petitioner was indulging
in DAE. It is not in dispute that the inspection report indicates
the following three features:
Upper Seal of meter box found tampered.
Scratches observed on dial plate.
Cover seals found missing.
However, as the DERC Regulations themselves acknowledge,
these signs are at best, helpful to 'supstect' DAE. They cannot
be taken to be 'conclusive evidence'. This Court has already
explained in several decisions (Jagdish Narayan v. NDPL
judgment dated 18.04.2007 in W.P. (C) 10287/2005) that
something more would have to be shown to enable the Court to
conclude that there has been DAE."
29. It is further argued by ld. counsel for accused that in the present case no
such tampering was noticed by the team as it was observed that the
physical state of the meter was found OK and all the seals were intact
and at the time of inspection, the meter was recording the reading. Ld.
counsel for accused has further taken my attention to the para 13, 15 and
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 19 of 24
20
25 of judgment (supra). The abovesaid relevant paras of the said
judgment are reproduced as under:
"Para 13. The speaking order appears to rely entirely only
upon the recorded consumption to conclude that this was a
case of DAE. The condition seems to be influenced primarily
by the fact that consumption prior to the petitonier taking over
the premises in February 2000, was high when compared to the
period after the petitioner took over. In the view of this Court,
this factor by itself can really not mean much since the nature
of the activity being carried on in the premises will determine
to use pattern. According to the petitioner, the previous
owners were running a plastic factory whereas the petitioner
began by operating a Sales Service Agency of the Maruti
Udyog Limited. Without enough evidence to show that there
was tampering with the internal mechanism of the meter in
order to slow down the meter and make it record the lesser
consumption, the mere comparison of the consumption pattern
for two periods may not ipso facto indicate the DAE."
"Para 15: What appears to have been happening in some of
these cases is that the suspicion of the DAE is leading to the
respondent immediately to work out the assessed/computed
consumption by using the LDHF formula without first conclusively establishing that there is DAE. The stage for applying the LDHF formula is after it is conclusively established that there is DAE. The LDHF formula is only for determining the quantum of penalty that is required to be levied in term of Regulation 26(ii) of the DERC Regulations. It would be page 1955 erroneous for the Respondent to begin by applying the penalty formula, comparing the recorded units with the computed units and then concluding that there is DAE on the basis of the percentae, i.e., worked out. The purpose of Regulation 26 (ii) is not for determining DAE but for determining the penalty once the DAE has been established."
"Para 25: Applying the above test, it has to be held that an automatic presumption of DAE on the basis of the external symptoms of tampering together with the analysis of the consumption pattern would not be a safe and error free method. Some other tangible evidence must be shown to exist. An accu check meter can be deployed to find out if the meter is in fact BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 20 of 24 21 recording lesser units. The analysis of the consumption pattern in terms of the Regulation 26 (ii) is merely corroborative and not by itself substantive evidence of DAE. The decision of this Court in Udham Singh v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 136 (2007) DLT 500 is to the same effect. In fact, the formula is applied in term of Regulation 25 (iv) read with 26 (ii) only for determining the penalty payable by the consumer once a case of either direct theft or DAE has been made out. The penalty formula cannot itself supply the proof of DAE or theft."
30. The identity of the accused Nand Kumar Rai and connection of the accused with the premises in question are not disputed. The only issue which requires to be decided in the present case is whether complainant has established the meter to be tampered with, for dishonest abstraction of electricity. The only tangible evidence on record is date and time on the display of meter to be different that the actual date and time on the display of meter to be different that the actual date and time. This observation was noticed by the inspecting team at the spot on 13.01.2010 itself and the same conclusion was also taken in the lab report Ex. CW2/G
31. However, for academic interest, the credibility of report shall be discussed. Perusal of the lab report Ex.CW2/G does not indicate presence of any foreign material. The conclusion has been arrived at, on BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 21 of 24 22 the basis of observation that the current date and time shown by the meter was disturbed and the MD was recorded more than once in a month. However, the same do not have any evidentiary value as the downloaded data in the consumption cannot be held to be sufficient evidence of deliberate tampering of the meter. The disturbed time and date or the distrubed MD are only symptoms of faulty functioning of a meter. An electronic device may fail for hundreds of reasons. Unless, it is established that it was a deliberate act attributable to the accused; there can be no criminality attached to it.
32. Moreover, mere display of wrong date and time or recording of MD more than once in a particular month would not necessarily mean that the energy consumption was also not being recorded properly by the meter.
33. The next contention that the consumption was on lower side as the period from 19.12.2008 to 25.12.2009 shows an average recorded consumption of 163 units per months, which was only 32% of the assessed consumption. The consumption pattern would indicate comparison of consumption on month to month basis, alternatively, BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 22 of 24 23 consumption recorded by two different meters running parallel. Comparison of consumed power with the hypothetical figure of assessed consumption was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court in Bhasin Motors' case.
34. Thus, in my opinion, comparison of recorded consumption with the assessed load cannot be indicative of comparison of actual consumption. Assessed load is a hypothetical figure, where all connected gadgets are presumed to be running for a particular period of time on each day. This is a statutorily determined consumption, which has been permitted to be used to determine theft bill. Relying upon assessed consumption to reach at an inference of theft of electricity, is totally inconceivable.
35. Moreover, in view of the deposition of the PWs, mere failure of RTC, even if it is to be assumed for the sake of argument as correct, does not establish that accused was responsible for the same or the abstraction of energy has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by mere failure of RTC. Thus, I am of considered opinion that it does not establish the case of the dishonest abstraction of energy.
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 23 of 24 24
36. In view of my said discussion, the complainant has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, I extend benefit of doubt to the accused Nand Kumar Rai and he is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s. 135 & 138 r/w Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open ( NEELAM SINGH)
court on this 31st of January, 2017 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
BRPL VS NAND KUMAR RAI CC No. 234/12 Page no. 24 of 24