Delhi District Court
State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma on 13 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(Electricity), EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No.915/2022
FIR No.180/2013
PS Krishna Nagar
State versus Pheru Dutt Sharma
S/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal
R/o H.No.B-221, Gali No.6,
Bihari Pur Extension, Delhi.
Date of institution 23.08.2022
Arguments heard 13.07.2023
Date of judgment 13.07.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Pheru Dutt Sharma has been facing trial upon the allegation that he intentionally indulged in an act amounting to theft of electricity and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. On 15.03.2023, at about 1.15 pm, an inspection was conducted by the Inspection Team of BSES YPL at the premises of accused i.e. H.No. B-221, Gali No.6, Biharipur Extension, Delhi-110094. At the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at site and the user/accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity with the help of two core black colour PVC aluminium FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 1 of 19 cable which was found connected from BSES Distribution Box of Pole No.KWN VJ 44. At the time of inspection, total connected load was found to the tune of 2.113 KW which was being used for domestic purposes at the inspected premises. Necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was done by videographer Sh. Raju. Illegal wire was removed by the lineman and seized at the spot. All the necessary documents like inspection report, load report and seizure memo were prepared at the spot.
3. On the basis of inspection, BSES Yamuna Power Limited (hereinafter referred as complainant company) through its Authorized Officer Sh. Jograj Singh (Sr. Manager), lodged a complaint U/s 135 of the Act with the SHO, PS Khajuri Khas upon whose direction, present case FIR was registered against the accused. Investigation of the case was marked to SI Shailender. On transfer of SI Shailender, investigation was assigned to HC Jai Singh, the second IO of the case.
4. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused U/s 135 of the Act.
NOTICE
5. On 23.08.2022, a notice for the commission of offence U/s 135 of the Act was given to accused to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial instead.
6. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses.
FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 2 of 19 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. PW1 HC Jai Singh is the IO of the case, who deposed that after investigation of FIR, investigation was initially marked to SI Shailender, however, SI Shailender was got transferred and investigation of the case was marked to him. During investigation, he served notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C upon the accused upon which he produced copies of ownership documents of the inspected premises along which his Aadhar Card which Mark A. He bound down the accused vide Pabandinama Ex.PW1/3. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet.
8. PW2 Sh. Virender Kumar is Diploma Trainee Engineer (DET) who deposed that on 15.03.2013, at about 115 pm, an inspection was conducted by the Enforcement Team of BSES YPL comprising of himself, Sh. Jograj Singh (Sr. Manager), Sh. Veer Singh Rana (Lineman), Sh. Pawan (Lineman) and Sh. Raju (Videographer) at the premises of accused i.e. H.No.P-221, Gali No.6, Biharipur Extension, Delhi-110094. At the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at the premises of accused and accused was found indulged in theft of electricity with the help of illegal wire which was found connected from BSES LV Main. PW2 further deposed that at the time of inspection, total connected load was found to the tune of 2.113 KW which was being used for domestic purposes at the entire inspected premises. Necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was captured by the Videographer Sh. Raju. The CD of videography is proved on record as Ex.PW2/1. During evidence, the CD was played on the laptop and after seeing FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 3 of 19 the CD, PW2 identified the video which was captured by videographer. During inspection, the inspection report Ex.PW2/2 and the load report Ex.PW2/3 were prepared at the spot. The illegal wire was removed by lineman Sh. Veer Singh Rana and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/4. Entire inspection documents prepared at site during inspection were tendered to accused to sign but he refused to sign and accept the same. PW2 further deposed that Sh. Jograj (Sr. Manager) lodged a complaint Ex.PW2/5 against the accused with SHO, PS Khajuri Khas.
9. PW3 Sh. Veer Singh Rana is the Lineman who corroborated the testimony of PW2 and deposed on the similar lines of PW2. He also deposed that illegal wire was removed by him and seized at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/4.
10.PW4 Inspector Shailender Kumar Singh (then SI) is the initial of the case, who deposed that the complaint lodged by Sh. Jograj (Sr. Manager) was marked to him. Thereafter, he made endorsement Ex.PW4/1 and got registered case FIR No.180/2013. The copy of the FIR is Ex.PW4/2. Thereafter, he visited the inspected site, prepared site plan Ex.PW4/3 and served the accused with the notice u/s 41.1(A) Cr.P.C (Ex.PW4/4) upon which accused joined the investigation and produced copy of his Aadhar Card. Thereafter, he was transferred and the case file was handed over to MHC(R).
11.Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for statement of the accused.
FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 4 of 19 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
12.All incriminating evidence which have come on record, were put to the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the material allegations. Accused chose not to lead any evidence to her defence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
13.Final arguments were advanced by the Ld. Substitute Addl. PP as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused.
14.Ld. Substitute Addl. PP with the assistance of AR of the complainant company that at the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at the premises of the accused and he was found indulged in direct theft of electricity. Ld. Substitute Addl. PP further submitted that the prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He also emphasised that inspection was conducted as per applicable Regulations. Thus, it is prayed that accused may be convicted.
15.On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that accused has not committed any theft. It is also stated that matter has been settled and settlement amount has been deposited. Thus, it is prayed that accused may be acquitted.
DISCUSSION
16.Before dealing with the factual aspects of the present case, it is FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 5 of 19 deemed appropriate to firstly specify and discuss the relevant provisions of the Act for appropriate adjudication of the case. The present case pertains to Section 135 of the Act. The provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act are reproduced as under:-
Section 135 Theft of electricity - (1) Whoever, dishonestly, (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier as the case may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity, or
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both:
17.Dishonest intention has not been defined in Electricity Act. As per Section 24 of IPC, it implies an act done with intention of causing wrongful gain to one or wrongful loss to another. The allegations against the accused are about hooking illegal wires with overhead BSES supply line and connecting the same with wiring of inspected premises. Therefore, Section 135(1) of Electricity Act would be relevant and applicable. As mentioned, dishonest intention is primary ingredient to impute any culpability in this matter.
FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 6 of 19
18.Under the Act, Regulations are framed by the Delhi Electricity Regularity Commission. Regulation 60 to 63 deal with theft of electricity, which are reproduced hereunder : "60. Inspections of the premises and electrical installations by Authorized officer:-
(1) The Authorized officer shall promptly conduct inspection of any premises either suo-moto or on receipt of information regarding theft of electricity:
Provided that the Authorized officer may avail the assistance of employees of the Licensee for conducting inspection. (2) The Authorized officer shall carry his visiting card bearing his photograph and photo identity card issued under Regulation 55(3). (3) Photo ID shall be shown and visiting card bearing his photograph shall be handed over to the consumer or the occupier of the premises before entering the premises and take the acknowledgment. (4) The Authorized officer shall prepare an inspection report as per the provisions under these Regulations.
61. Preparation of Report by Authorized officer:-
(1) In the event of detection of theft of electricity, the Authorized officer shall prepare a detailed Report at site, in the manner as prescribed in the Commission's Orders.
(2) All the material evidences such as tampered meter, tampered meter seal and artificial means used for illegal abstraction of energy and the documentary evidences etc., which are relevant to the case and found during the inspection, shall be seized under a seizure memo and sealed in the presence of the consumer or his authorized representative and be kept as a proof along with photography and video recording of the premises.
(3) A detailed description of the material seized, including date, time and place and name & address of witnesses to the seizure shall be recorded on the exterior of the cover and signatures of all witnesses shall be affixed on the sealing points:
Provided that if the witness refuses to sign, the same shall be recorded in the report and captured in the videography.
(4) The inspection Report shall be signed by the Authorized officer and a copy of the same shall be handed over to the consumer or his FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 7 of 19 representative at the site immediately under proper acknowledgement. The other persons present at site may also sign the inspection report. (5) If consumer or his representative at site refuses to acknowledge and accept the copy of the report, a copy of the report shall be pasted at a conspicuous place in or outside the premises and photographed and/or video recorded. Another copy of the same report shall be sent to the consumer under Registered Post or Speed Post or electronically on the same day or on the next day of the inspection. (6) The inspection report shall form the basis for further action as per the provisions contained in Regulations.
62. Procedure for prosecution for Theft of Electricity:-
(1) The prosecution for theft of electricity under section 135 of the Act shall be initiated only in the cases where dishonest intention is evident from the relevant facts, records and other evidence of the case. (2) In case sufficient evidence is found to establish theft of electricity, the Authorized officer under subsection (2) of Section 135 of the Act shall seize and seal all material evidence including wires/cables, meter, service line etc., from the premises under a seizure Memo. (3) The supply of the consumer shall be disconnected immediately on detection of theft only by such officer of the Licensee or supplier as authorised for the purpose by the Commission, under sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of the Act:
Provided that such officer shall lodge a complaint in writing in Police Station having jurisdiction over the site of occurrence of the offence within twenty four hours from time of such disconnection: Provided further that such officer shall also send to the consumer a copy of complaint lodged in Police Station, copy of speaking order under Regulation 64 along with a copy of videography of inspection within 2 (two) days of such disconnection.
(4) No case for theft shall be booked only on account of missing of the seals on the meter or on account of breakage of glass window of the meter, unless dishonest intention is corroborated by consumption pattern of consumer or any other evidence.
(5) Interference with the accurate registration of energy consumed by resorting to external methods involving remote control, high voltage injection etc., committed by the consumer or his employee or any other person acting on his behalf, shall also constitute theft of electricity which may be established by analysis of metering data and by testing of the meter in an accredited laboratory notified by the FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 8 of 19 Commission or by the agency authorized by the Commission in this regard.
63. Assessment Bill for theft of electricity:-
(1) The Assessing officer shall assess the energy for theft of electricity as notified in the Appendix I to the Regulations.
(2) The period of assessment for theft of electricity shall be for a period of 12 (twelve) months preceding the date of detection of theft of electricity or the exact period of theft if determined, whichever is less:
Provided further that period of theft of electricity shall be assessed based on the following factors:-
(i) actual period from the date of commencement of supply to the date of inspection;
(ii) actual period from the date of replacement of component of metering system in which the evidence is detected to the date of inspection;
(iii) actual period from the date of preceding checking of installation by authorized officer to date of inspection;
(iv) data recorded in the energy meter memory wherever available.
(v) based on the document being relied upon by the accused person. (3) The assessment bill shall be prepared on two times the rate as per applicable tariff.
(4) While making the assessment bill, the Licensee shall give credit to the consumer for the electricity units already paid by the consumer for the period of the assessment bill.
(5) The assessment order shall be served upon the consumer or the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises, as the case may be, within 7 (seven) days of disconnection of supply or within 2 (two) days from the date of receipt of request of such person, whichever is earlier.
19.As per prosecution case, at the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at site and the user/accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wire. As per settled criminal jurisprudence, it is obligatory upon Prosecution to FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 9 of 19 prove these allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is stated to be user as well as owner in the inspected premises and thus is liable to answer the allegations.
20.PW2 Sh. Virender Kumar (DET) and PW2 Sh. Veer Singh (lineman) being member of Inspection Team are the material witnesses in this case. PW2 corroborated the allegations made in the complaint (Ex.PW2/5) and deposed having witnessed the factum, mode and manner of commission of theft. Accused/user was found to be drawing electricity through an illegal wire connected from BSES Service Cable to house of accused. During cross-examination of PW2 and PW3, accused did not put to witness any suggestion that electricity meter was available at the inspected premises for the said purposes. PW2 and PW3 deposed that videographer Sh. Raju videographed the Inspection Proceedings in which the commission of theft of electricity at the inspected premises was recorded. PW2 and PW3 were duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for accused who was unable to cull out any contradiction in their testimony. The depositions were about same incident of inspection and those were consistent in basic details with necessary corroboration from material documents proved. Ld. Counsel for accused merely put suggestions to material witnesses who were part of inspection team that no inspection took place and any such documents were not prepared which were categorically denied by witnesses.
21.It was also argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the seizure of FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 10 of 19 wires which were used for theft and even preparation of inspection documents was not videographed. PW2 and PW3 have given detailed deposition about removal of wire, its seizure as well as preparation of inspection documents in the testimony sheet. Videography about inspection having taken place and manner of commission of direct theft also has been proved by PW2 and PW3. It is note worthy that removal of wire or its seizure has not been created doubt upon, rather theft recovered was well- videographed. It is settled that videography proceedings or even seizure of illegal cable or device used for commission of direct theft is only to lend corroboration to the oral testimony. There was nothing put to the witnesses which they were unable to explain being members of Inspection Team. Documents prepared bear signature of PW2 and PW3 as prime members of Inspection Team. Those documents have been placed in original in the court and proved by PW2 and PW3. Just because removal of illegal cable or seizure was not videographed, it would not falsify the testimony of PW2 and PW3 which squarely indicates and explains about Inspection Proceedings. Similarly, preparation of Inspection Documents cannot be questioned on the sole premise that preparation was not videographed. Further, same is not recommended under applicable Regulations. It is settled that propriety of process without any major lacunae cannot thwart the genuineness of entire proceedings. These are minor fallouts which cannot discredit the entire process and do not hit at the root FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 11 of 19 because establishment of theft is based upon oral testimony which has been able to withheld the test of cross-examination. Nothing contradictory could be extracted from the testimony of prosecution witnesses during cross-examination and the testimony of witnesses has been consistent and thus, the factum of inspection, preparation of documents as well as presence of the accused at the spot and videography of inspection proceedings done by videographer stand proved.
22.It was also submitted on behalf of the accused that prosecution case is highly doubtful as no public witness was made to join during the inspection of the premises. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that the user/accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wire and these facts have been well proved by PW2 and PW3. During evidence, the CD containing inspection proceedings was played before the court which depicted the manner in which the accused/user was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wire. It is clear that there was no electricity meter available at the premises of the accused. It is not disputed by the accused that at the time of inspection, certain electrical appliances as mentioned in the load report were found at the inspected premises at the time of inspection and connected load was running through illegal wire which was directly connected from BSES Distribution Box. Furthermore, as per load report, certain electrical appliances were available at the inspected premises and accused has not explained FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 12 of 19 as how those appliances were being used in absence of an authorized electricity meter. It is not the case of the accused that those electric appliances were being run through any legal means other than direct theft of electricity. Thus, it is clear from the record that the officials of complainant company who had no animosity with the accused, have proved the allegations beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, under these circumstances, non- joining of public witness does not affect the authenticity of the prosecution case. In this regard, this Court is supported with the case law reported as 'Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors vs Ashwani Kumar, 2010 (7) SCC 569'. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has made the following observations :-
".....The report prepared by the officers of the Electricity Board is an act done in discharge of their duties and could not be straightway reflected or disbelieved unless and until there was definite and cogent material on record to arrive at such a finding. The inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of his official duty by the officers of the corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in favour of such act or document and not against the same. Thus there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct."
23.In the case titled as 'Sushil Sharma vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.' in Crl. Appeal No.1060/10 decided on 22.12.2010, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that non-examination of independent/public witness is no infirmity as the members of the inspection team who deposed in the court, were having no enmity against the appellant and their testimonies are trustworthy. In the present case also, there is no material to show that the BSES FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 13 of 19 officials who inspected the premises of the accused were inimical to the accused.
24.Accused has taken one another plea that he was not present at site at the time of inspection. In the cross-examination, PW2 and PW3 admitted that accused was not present at the time of inspection. It is trite that mere presence or absence of accused would not define contours of theft of electricity. Accused admittedly was owner and in possession of inspected premises and mere absence at the time of inspection cannot discredit the prosecution case. In fact it makes the spontaneity of inspection proceedings. Videography about inspection having taken place and manner of commission of direct theft also has been proved by PW2.
25.It is not the case of accused that inspection team was not authorized to conduct inspection or that it indulged in any illegality which thwarts the entire process of inspection proceedings. Accused has not explained as to how and from where he was drawing electricity, if the prosecution story is incorrect. He has not brought any document or evidence on record which could suggest that any authorized electricity meter was available at the inspected premises at the time of incident. If there was any electricity meter available at the inspected premises or that the accused was drawing electricity through any authorized meter, he ought to have brought some document or give details of the electricity meter to disprove the prosecution story but he has not brought any such document on record which indicates that no FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 14 of 19 electricity meter was available for inspected premises at the time of inspection while electrical appliances can be seen to be running during inspection proceedings.
26.Inspection Report and Load Report were prepared as per applicable Regulation No.61 and 63(2) of the Regulation. Load x Days x Hours x Factor (LDHF) formula as provided in Appendix 1 in terms of Regulation 63 for preparation of Assessment Bill was applied and theft bill was raised accordance to Regulations. There is no reason to discredit the prosecution version. The testimony of prosecution witnesses coupled with proven documentation prove that accused indulged in direct theft of electricity.
27.It is evident from the deposition of prosecution witnesses that on 15.03.2013, at about 1.15 pm, an inspection was carried out at the premises of accused by the inspecting team members/officials of complainant company. It is also clear that no electricity meter was available at the inspected premises and the user/accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wire drawn from BSES supply pole to the house of accused. The inspection proceedings were recorded by the videographer and the CD containing videography of the inspection proceedings has been brought on record as Ex.PW2/1. PW2 and PW3 proved the relevant documents i.e. inspection report as Ex.PW2/2, load report as Ex.PW2/3 and seizure memo Ex.PW2/4. Oral testimony led by FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 15 of 19 competent witnesses coupled with proved documentation and failure of accused to even put across his version or explanation of events or to falsify/discredit the prosecution version proves the factum of inspection which unearthed the illegal act of accused/user having indulged in direct theft of electricity.
28.Once the prosecution successfully establishes the charges against the accused regarding theft of electricity then in view of the statutory presumption mentioned in the third proviso of section 135 (1) of the Act, it is to be presumed that accused has committed direct theft of electricity if accused fails to bring some evidence on record to rebut the presumption. The said presumption is reproduced as follows:-
"Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised 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".
29.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case reported as '2001 (6) SCC 16 titled as Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee', has laid down the law related to the rebuttal of statutory presumption. Relevant portion of the para no.16 is reproduced as under:-
"...Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard or reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'."
30.In view of the settled law, now it is to be seen if the accused has FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 16 of 19 taken any defence to rebut the aforesaid statutory presumption. It is clear from the record that in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has simply stated that that he has already settled the matter with the complainant company and settlement amount has already been paid. It is clear from the record that the accused did not lead any defence evidence. If the accused/user did not indulge in direct theft of electricity or that he was using the electricity through legal sources then the easiest way to rebut the statutory presumption for the accused was to prove on record that at the time of inspection, he was drawing electricity through his own electricity meter. However, accused/user has not brought anything on record to disprove the allegations brought on record by the prosecution. Furthermore, it appears from the statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C, a theft bill was raised and he has settled the matter with the complainant company and settlement amount has been deposited by him and an NOC was also issued to him. During the course of arguments, AR of the complainant company submitted that after inspection, complaint Ex.PW2/4 was lodged on the same day and FIR was registered on 12.04.2013 and due to this reason theft electricity bill raised could not be placed on record. He also submitted that theft bill was raised later on and accused settled the matter qua civil liability and deposited the settlement. In case, the officials of the complainant company had not carried out the inspection as deposed by the prosecution witnesses or raised a false and baseless claim by way of theft bill, then instead of going for FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 17 of 19 settlement, the accused would have raised his protest and would have initiated appropriate proceedings against the officials of complainant company for raising a false claim against him. This conduct of the accused also fortifies the allegations of the direct theft of electricity against him. In view of these discussions, it is held that accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption. In this regard, this court is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported as 'Mukesh Rastogi vs North Delhi Power Limited' 2007 (99) DRJ108. The observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are reproduced as under:-
"....6. The contention of the appellant is that electricity supply was going through meter. 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 mere. 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. However, this was not even the case of the appellant either before trial court or in appeal that he had been using electricity through meter and had been paying bills of electricity as per meter. The appellant had only taken the stand that inspection was not valid inspection and the photographs were not proved properly".
31.In view of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that no electricity meter was available at the premises of the accused at the time of inspection. The very act of drawing electricity by connecting illegal wires with BSES Distribution Box without having to pay for consumption of electrical energy has dishonest intention FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 18 of 19 inherent in it. Accused has not tried/attempted to reason or distance himself from his act. He has not stated that he was not aware of his liability of pay for the usage of electricity energy. Videography was duly recorded that electrical appliances are in use at the inspected premises. There is no explanation even on the face of it qua its usage. The only reasonable conclusion is that accused, deliberately, consciously being aware of malafide of his illegal act, indulged in getting connections to use electricity in premises being owner and in immediate possession of his inspected premises. It is established that accused dishonestly indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wire having established connection with BSES Distribution Box which is punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Consequently, accused is convicted U/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Digitally signed by SHELLY SHELLY ARORA Date: ARORA 2023.07.13 16:58:00 +0530 (Shelly Arora) Addl. Sessions Judge (Electricity) East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Announced in open court on 13.07.2023 FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 19 of 19