Delhi District Court
Bses Rajdhani Power Limited vs . Devi on 19 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP YADAV, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE/SPECIAL COURT (ELECTRICITY) (SOUTH), SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CT No. 76/2015
PS Hazrat Nizamuddin
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
Vs.
Devi
(i) Name of complainant : Pankaj Tandon
Authorised Officer
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place
New Delhi.
(ii) Date of commission of : 03.02.2015
Offence
(iii) Name of the accused : Devi, W/o. Sh. Kumar
R/o. Premises Right Hand Side of
Jhuggi No. 2, Pant Nagar, Jangpura,
New Delhi.
(iv) Offence complained of : 135 of Electricity Act, 2003
(v) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(vi) Arguments heard on : 17.04.2023
(vii) Judgment pronounced on : 19.04.2023
JUDGMENT
CT No. 76/15 1/9
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Devi
1. Criminal law was set in motion in this case when a complaint was filed by BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") under Section 151 of the Electricity Act against accused Devi. It was alleged in the complaint that a joint inspection team of the complainant comprising of Gaurav Bajaj/Manager, Pawan Kumar/GET and Mahesh Kumar/Technician inspected the premises i.e. premises right side of jhuggi no. 2, Pant Nagar, Jangpura, New Delhi. At the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at the spot and the user/accused was found indulging in direct theft of electricity from BSES pole through illegal wire. The entire inspection proceeding was videographed by Mohd. Arsh videographer from M/s Arora Photo Studio. All the incriminating material was seized at the site and the relevant documents were prepared. The total load of the inspected premises running through direct theft was found as 2.820 KW/DX/DT. A sum of Rs.50,174/ was assessed against the accused in accordance with the provisions of DERC Regulations which is stated to be paid by the accused to the complainant. It was concluded in the complaint that accused has committed an offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
2. Cognizance of the offence was taken and presummoning evidence was led by the complainant. After conclusion of presummoning evidence, accused Devi was summoned. Pursuant to the appearance of the accused Devi, notice as contemplated under Section 251 CT No. 76/15 2/9 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Devi Cr.P.C was served upon her. Accused Devi pleaded not guilty which necessitated the trial.
3. Since, accused pleaded not guilty, trial commenced and the complainant examined four witnesses to prove its case against the accused. After conclusion of complainant's evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein accused Devi denied all the incriminating evidences. Three defence witnesses were examined.
4. I have heard Mr. Naresh Bhardwaj, ld. counsel for the complainant as well as Mr. Karamvir Singh, ld. counsel for accused at length and perused the documents on record.
5. PW 1 Gaurav Bajaj, DGM (KCC), BSES, Division Nizamuddin West, New Delhi, inter alia deposed that on 03.02.2015 at about 1 PM, he alongwith Pawan Kumar/GET, Mahesh/Technician and Md. Arsh/Photographer from M/s. Arora Photo Studio, visited and inspected the premises i.e. right side of jhuggi no. 2, Pant Nagar, Jungpura, New Delhi; on reaching the spot, it was found that there was no electricity meter installed at site and accused Devi was found indulging in direct theft of electricity with illegal tapping from BSES pole with the help of illegal wire i.e. black color copper multistrand wire of 8 mm sq. PW 1 Gaurav Bajaj further deposed that Pawan/GET assessed the connected load of inspected premises. PW CT No. 76/15 3/9 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Devi 1 Gaurav Bajaj further deposed that Md. Arsh/Videographer conducted the videography of the inspection. PW 1 Gaurav Bajaj further deposed that during the inspection, documents i.e inspection report Ex. CW2/A, load report Ex. CW2/B and seizure memo Ex. CW2/C were prepared. Thereafter, PW 1 Gaurav Bajaj identified the compact disc containing the videography of inspection as Ex. CW2/D. PW 1 Gaurav Bajaj also identified the accused Devi in the Court. PW 1 Gaurav Bajaj further deposed that Mahesh/Technician, removed and seized the illegal wires i.e. black color multistrand copper wire of size 8 mm sq and having length 10 inches approx. PW 1 identified the said wires in the Court as Ex. P2 (colly).
6. PW 2 Amitabh Srivastava deposed that on 12.02.2015, on the basis of inspection report and load report, he raised assessment bill for theft (DT) Ex. PW2/E in the sum of Rs. 50,174/ in the name of accused Devi on the basis of LDHF formula and the guidelines provided in AnnexureXIII in DERC regulations.
7. PW 3 Mahesh Kumar/lineman who was part of inspection team deposed on similar lines. PW 3 Mahesh Kumar inter alia deposed that on 03.02.2015, at around 01.00 p.m, he along with Pawan Kumar/GET, Gaurav Bajaj/Manager, Mohd Arsh/Videographer visited and inspected the premises i.e. RHS of Jhuggi No.2, Pant Nagar, Jangpura, New Delhi; on reaching the inspected premises, it was found that there was no electricity meter installed at site and CT No. 76/15 4/9 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Devi accused Devi was found indulging in direct theft of electricity by directly tapping from BSES pole with the help of two core black colour multistrand of copper wire of 8 sq. mm. PW 3 Mahesh Kumar further deposed that upon the instruction of team leader, he removed and seized the illegal wire i.e. two core black colour multi strand of copper wire of 8 sq. mm and having length 10 inches approximately. PW 3 Mahesh Kumar identified the seized wire in the Court. Thereafter, PW 3 Mahesh Kumar deposed about preparation of documents i.e. inspection report Ex. CW2/A, load report Ex. CW2/B and seizure memo Ex. CW2/C. PW 3 Mahesh Kumar further deposed that Arsh/videographer conducted the videography of inspection and identified the compact disc containing the videography as Ex. CW2/D.
8. PW 4 Pawan Kumar, the then GET and who was part of inspection team, deposed on similar lines. PW 4 Pawan Kumar deposed that on 03.02.2015, at about 1 PM, he alongwith Gaurav Bajaj/Team Leader, Mahesh Kumar/Lineman and Arsh Kumar/Videographer from M/s. Arora Photo Studio visited and inspected the premises i.e. right side jhuggi no. 2, Pant Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi; on reaching the site, they found that there was no electricity meter installed and user Devi was found indulging in direct theft of electricity from BSES pole with the help of illegal wire i.e. black color multistrand copper wire of size 8 sq mm. PW 4 Pawan Kumar further deposed that upon the instructions of team leader, he assessed the connected CT No. 76/15 5/9 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Devi load of inspected premises and same was found as 2.820 KW for domestic purpose. PW 4 identified the videography of inspection contained in the compact disc as Ex.PW2/D.
9. PW 1 Gaurav Bajaj clearly named accused Devi in examination in chief deposing that accused Devi was found indulging in direct theft of electricity with illegal tapping from BSES Pole with the help of illegal wire. In fact, PW 1 Gaurav Bajaj identified accused Devi in the Court during his testimony. PW 1 Gaurav Bajaj deposed that during inspection, he offered documents to accused Devi to receive and sign the same but accused refused the same.
10. Similarly, PW 3 Mahesh Kumar also named accused Devi in his examination in chief deposing that accused Devi was found indulging in direct theft of electricity by directly tapping from BSES Pole with the help of two core black color multistrand copper wire of size 8 mm sq.
11. PW 4 Pawan Kumar in cross examination deposed that user found at the spot disclosed her name as Devi and user Devi remained near the inspected premises throughout the inspection proceedings.
12. Besides, three defence witnesses, examined on behalf of accused, have also implicated accused in cross examination. DW 1 Nadayammal Mandal deposed in cross examination that there was no CT No. 76/15 6/9 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Devi electricity meter installed in the jhuggi of accused at the time of inspection. DW 1 further deposed that accused is running electricity through direct theft of electricity.
13. DW 2 Sumathi deposed in cross examination that no electricity meter was ever installed in the jhuggi of accused. DW 3 Shankar deposed in cross examination that there was no electricity meter in the inspected premises when accused Devi was residing therein and the raid was conducted by BSES.
14. Mr. Karamvir Singh, ld. counsel for accused, referred to the cross examination of complainant witnesses wherein they have deposed that accused Devi and members of inspected team are not depicted in the videography. It was submitted that even videographer was not examined and hence, videography was not proved in accordance with law. Ld. counsel for accused referred to cross examination of PW 1 Gauraj Bajaj wherein it is mentioned that distance between inspected premises and pole is about six meter while the wire that was used for illegal tapping of electricity and which was produced in the Court was having the length of 10 inches only. No doubt, these are some of the irregularities in the inspection proceedings but the question is whether accused can take advantage of same and whether accused can be acquitted because of these irregularities.
15. In Mukesh Rastogi Vs. North Delhi Power Limited decided on CT No. 76/15 7/9 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Devi 23.10.2007, it was held in para 7 as under :
" I consider 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 inspection. The invalid inspection does not make theft of electricity as a noncrime. Theft of electricity remains a crime irrespective of the fact that inspection is valid or not. Supreme Court in State and Ors Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate MANU/SC/0448/2004; 2004(5) SCC 729 observed that admissibility or otherwise of a piece of evidence has to be judged having regard to the provisions of the Evidence Act. Neither Evidence Act nor Cr.PC or any other law excludes relevant evidence on the ground that it was obtained under an illegal search or seizure. I, therefore, consider that even if the inspection was not conducted by an officer as designated under the notification date 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."
16. Another point stressed by Mr. Karamvir Singh, ld. counsel for accused, was that address of inspected premises was not properly proved. PW 1 Gaurav Bajaj gave the address of inspected premises as "right hand side of jhuggi no. 2, Pant Nagar, Jangpura, New Delhi". Similarly, PW 3 Mahesh Kumar gave the address of CT No. 76/15 8/9 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Devi inspected premises as "right hand side of jhuggi no. 2, Pant Nagar, Jangpura, New Delhi". PW 4 Pawan Kumar gave the address of inspected premises as "right hand side of jhuggi no. 2, Pant Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi". Additional words "Kotla Mubarakpur" occurring in the testimony of PW 4 Pawan Kumar will not make the address of inspected premises doubtful.
17. From over all reading and analysis of evidence adduced by complainant as well as accused, it stands proved on record that it was accused Devi who was found indulging in direct theft of electricity at the inspected premises.
18. The obvious conclusion is that complainant has proved its case against accused beyond all shades of doubt. Accordingly, accused Devi is convicted for the offence u/s. 135 Electricity Act.
Devi will be heard on the point of sentence on 20.04.2023 at 2 PM.
Announced in the open ( SANDEEP YADAV)
court on 19.04.2023 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
CT No. 76/15 9/9
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Devi