Delhi District Court
State vs . Devender on 27 August, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM08(SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Devender
FIR No. 280/01
PS : Sabzi Mandi
U/s 39 of IE Act
27.08.2011
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. : 280/2001
2.Date of the Commission of the offence : 24.05.2001
3.Name of the accused : Devender Singh S/o
Babu Ram R/o H.No.
B1884, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
4.Name of the complainant : Sh. H.R. Mittal, AE
Zone No. 401, Nagia
Park, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi
5.Offence complained of : 39 of I.E. Act
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquitted
8.Date of final order : 27.08.2011
2
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.11.2001 at House No. 400, Mukim Pura, Delhi the accused was found indulging in direct theft of electricity by trapping directly from DVB LV Mains by temporary loose PVC Wires of various sizes of blue colour and two core 10 square MM Cable of black colour and thereby committed an offence under Section 39 of IE Act. Thereafter investigation was carried out, site plan was prepared. Accused was arrested, statement of witnesses recorded and charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 39 of IE Act.
2. Prima facie, offence having been made out against the accused, charge was framed against him on 25.02.2006 under Section 39 of IE Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. To prove its case prosecution examined two witnesses namely PW 1 SI Baljeet and PW2 SI Ved Mantar.
4. PW - 1 SI Baljeet deposed that he received a complaint Ex. PW1/A and got the present case registered on 16.08.2001. During investigation he collected the documents and case property i.e. wires along with photographs which were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/B. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/C. Thereafter, he identified the case property.
Ld. Counsel for the accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness. 3
5. PW 2 SI Ved Mantar deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW2/A and collected the residential proof i.e. copy of telephone bill that is Mark X and after completion of investigation filed challan in the court through SHO.
Ld. Counsel for the accused did not prefer to cross examine the said witness also.
6. Thereafter despite several opportunities being given to adduce the prosecution, no witnesses have been examined. It is pertinent to mention here that the present matter pertain to the year, 2001 and charge against the accused was framed on 25.06.2006 for offence punishable under Section 39 of IE Act. As already sufficient opportunities were given to the prosecution to examine witnesses, the right of the Prosecution to lead further evidence was closed vide order dated 08.07.2011.
7. After closing prosecution evidence the statement of accused under Section 281 Cr. PC read with Section 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 01.08.2011. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
8. In a criminal case, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution was required to adduce evidence against the accused to show that at the time when the raid was conducted, the accused was the consumer receiving electricity from the complainant company and when the raid was conducted he was found abstracting the electricity dishonestly.
9. To bring home the charge under Section 39 of the I/E. Acdt, 1910, it is to be established by the prosecution that the accused was dishonestly abstracting, consuming or using the energy. The existence of any artificial means of such abstraction shall be deemed to be a prima facie evidence of such dishonest 4 abstraction.
10. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma, Vs. State of Bihar (1967 A.I.R. (SC) 349) that such artificial means must be a 'perfected' artificial means shown to be in possession and control of the accused. Perfected artificial means denotes a wire or any other foreign matter which on being introduced in the meter would have the effect of stopping or retarding the progress of meter. Further the accused must be shown to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.
11. In another case, Jagannath Singh Vs. B.S,. Ramaswamy, 1966 A.I.R. (SC) 849, it was observed that energy may be dishonestly abstracted by artificial means or unauthorized devices. For instance, energy before it passes through a consumer's meter may be abstracted from the main of the electric company by an unauthorized wire connecting the main with a private terminal; the connecting wire is the artificial means for abstraction. Again, by tampering with the meter and causing it to record less than the units actually passing through it, the consumer may take the unrecorded energy without paying for it.
12. Another essential requirement of law for prosecution under the I.E. Act is that the prosecution must be instituted at the instance of a person named in Section 50 of the Act and the prosecution in respect of that offence would be incompetent unless requisite condition stipulated under the Section 50 is fulfilled.
13. In the instant case no evidence have been adduced by the prosecution to show that the accused was the user of the electricity, alleged to be fraudulently abstracted at the time of raid. No evidence whatsoever have been placed on record for proving that the accused was the owner or the user. Apart from this witness only 5 two formal witnesses have been examined by the prosecution out of list of 15 witnesses only two witnesses have been examined being the investigating officers. None of the members of the raiding party have been examined. None of the allegations of the prosecution have been substantiated by deposition of any of the witnesses.
14. Thus, clearly there is no evidence on the file to bring home the guilt of the accused and accordingly he has to be given benefit of doubt and hence accused Devender is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 39 of IE Act for which he stands charged.
Matter be listed for furnishing of bail bond on 29.08.2011. ANNOUNCED ON 27.08.2011 (CHETNA SINGH) MM08(South)/27.08.2011 Certified that this judgment contains 7 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM08(South)/27.08.2011 6 State Vs. Devender FIR No. 280/01 PS : Sabzi Mandi U/s 39 of IE Act 27.08.2011 Present : Ld. APP for the state.
Accused is absent despite repeated calls since morning. Today, matter was listed for filing of bail bond under section 437A Cr.P.C. The accused was acquitted vide order dated 27.08.2011. No bail bond have been furnished today.
Let, B/W in sum of Rs. 10000/ be issued against the accused through IO/SHO concerned for 13.09.2011.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM08(South)/29.08.2011 7 State Vs. Devender FIR No. 280/01 PS : Sabzi Mandi U/s 39 of IE Act 27.08.2011 Present : Ld. APP for the state.
Accused is present on bail with Ld. Counsel.
Final arguments heard.
Vide seperate judgment of even date, accused is acquitted. Be put up for furnishing of fresh bail bonds under Section 437A Cr. PC for 29.08.2011.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM08(South)/27.08.2011