Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Kuldeep Singh on 5 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (Electricity), EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No.208/2022
FIR No.423/2019
U/s 135/150 of Electricity Act
PS Kuldeep Singh etc
State versus 1) Kuldeep Singh
S/o Late Balwant Singh
2) Ranjit Kaur
W/o Kuldeep Singh
Both R/o H.No.83/2/E/1, Gali No.8,
East Azad Nagar, Delhi
Date of institution 23.02.2022
Arguments heard 31.08.2022
Date of judgment 05.09.2022
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the prosecution case:-
1. The BSES Yamuna Power Limited (hereinafter referred as complainant company/BSES) through its Assistant Manager Sh. Anil Kumar, made a complaint U/s 135/138/150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the SHO, PS Krishna Nagar for registration of an FIR against the accused Kuldeep Singh (user) and accused Ranjit Kaur (registered consumer) U/s 135/138/150 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that on 14.10.2019, at 11.30 FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 1 of 17 am, an inspection was carried out by the inspection team of BSES YPL at the premises of accused persons i.e. 83/2/E/1, East Azad Nagar, Delhi-
110051. The inspection team was comprised of Sh. Anil Kumar (Assistant Manager), Sh. Rajeev Kumar (DET) and Sh. Rashid Ali (Linemen) alongwith videographer Sh. Parveen. At the time of inspection, meters No.25313899 and 35191745 were found installed at site but the user/accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by tampering the electricity supply system of the complainant company and the meter box seal and meter terminal seals of the meter no.25313899 were found tampered and illegal shunt wires were found connected at phase to phase and neutral to neutral of the meter no.25313899. The meter no.25313899 was removed by the lineman and seized at the spot and electricity supply of the inspected meter was restored by installing new meter no.55227550. At the time of inspection, total connected load was found to the tune of 6.760 KW which was being used for domestic purposes. Relevant documents namely inspection report, load report and seizure memo were prepared at the spot. Entire set of documents prepared at the spot was tendered to the consumer/accused Kuldeep Singh who signed these documents at point Z. Public persons were requested to join the investigation but none agreed. Accused Kuldeep Singh was found to be the user and accused Ranjit Kaur was found to be the registered consumer. Accused Ranjit Kaur being registered consumer, abetted accused Kuldeep Singh to commit direct theft of electricity. The act of the accused Kuldeep Singh falls within the provision of section 135 of the Electricity Act and the act of the accused Ranjit Kaur falls within the provisions of section FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 2 of 17 135/150 of the Act. On the basis of inspection, the complainant company assessed the demand to the tune of Rs.1,48,599/-. Accordingly following the guidelines of DERC, a theft bill was raised and sent to the accused persons but they failed to deposit the said amount. Original CD of the said videography alongwith Certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act was also submitted with the complaint. Thus, a prayer was made in the complaint for registration of an FIR against the accused persons U/s 135/138/150 of the Act.
3. The SHO marked the said complaint (Ex.PW2/3) to HC Anand Pal. HC Anand Pal made endorsement on the complaint and handed over the same to the Duty Officer for registration of an FIR. Accordingly, the Duty Officer registered FIR No.423/2019 and assigned the investigation of the case to HC Anand Pal, the IO of the case. On 25.12.2019, IO visited the inspected premises and served the accused Ranjit Kaur with the notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C. She joined the investigation and produced copy of her Aadhar Card and the electricity bill which was issued in her name. IO bound down the accused Ranjit Kaur to appear before the Court vide Pabandinama. Thereafter on 28.12.2019, IO again visited the inspected premises and served the accused Kuldeep Singh with the notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C. He joined the investigation on the same day and produced copy of his Aadhar Card and the electricity bill which was issued in his name. During investigation, IO recorded the statements of neighbours namely Sh. Phool Chand Jain, s/o Sh. Dharam Sahai Jain and Devender Pal Singh s/o Yashpal Singh U/s 161 Cr.P.C in regard to the ownership of the inspected premises and it came to notice that the inspected premises belongs to the FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 3 of 17 accused persons at the relevant time. IO bound down the accused Kuldeep Singh to appear before the Court vide Pabandinama. After completion of investigation, IO filed the charge-sheet.
4. On 11.05.2022, a notice for the commission of offence U/s 135 r/w section 150 of the Act was given to the accused Ranjit Kaur and separate notice was given to the accused Kuldeep Singh U/s 135 of the Act. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses. In order to put the facts in chronological order, the testimony of members of inspection team is being discussed first:-
(5.1) PW2 Sh. Anil Kumar is the Assistant Manager of the complainant company. This witness deposed that on 14.10.2019, at about 11.30 am, an inspection was conducted by the enforcement team comprising of himself, Sh. Rajeev Kumar (DET), Sh. Rashid Ali (lineman) and Sh. Parveen (Videographer) at the premises of accused persons i.e. H.No.83/2, E-1, East Azad Nagar, Delhi-110051. At the time of inspection, one meter No.25313899 with reading 17208 units was found installed in the name of accused Ranjit Kaur at the inspected premises and the accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal shunt wires which were connected at phase to phase and neutral to neutral at the terminal of the aforesaid meter and meter box seal and terminal seals were found tampered. The said meter was removed by the lineman and seized at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/4 and the electricity supply FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 4 of 17 of the inspected premises was restored by a new meter no.55227550. The total connected load was found to the tune of 6.760 KW which was being used for domestic purposes at the first floor. At the time of inspection, both the accused persons were present at the spot and necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was done by the videographer Sh. Parveen. The CD containing videography of the inspection proceedings has been brought on record as Ex.PW2/1. During evidence, the CD was played on the laptop and PW2 identified the video which was recorded by the videographer during inspection. PW2 also identified the accused persons in the said video. The inspection report Ex.PW2/2 and the load report Ex.PW2/3 were prepared at the spot. PW2 further deposed that the meter no.25313899 was removed by the lineman Sh. Rashid Ali and seized at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/4. Entire set of documents was prepared at the site in presence of accused and the same was tendered to the accused and accused Kuldeep Singh signed all the inspection documents at Point Z. On the basis of inspection, a theft bill of Rs.1,48,531/- (Ex.PW2/5) was raised and sent to the accused. Thereafter, on 14.11.2019, PW2 lodged a complaint (Ex.PW2/6) with the SHO, PS Krishna Nagar for registration of an FIR against the accused persons.
(5.2) PW3 Sh. Rajeev Kumar is the Diploma Trainee Engineer (DET). This witness was another member of the inspection team and he corroborated the testimony of PW2 and deposed on the similar lines of the testimony of PW2. He also identified the accused persons in the video contained in the CD Ex.PW2/1.
(5.3) PW4 Sh. Parveen Kumar is the Videographer. This witness FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 5 of 17
deposed that on 14.10.2019, at about 11.30 am, an inspection was conducted at the premises of accused persons and during inspection, on the instruction of team leader Sh. Anil Kumar (Assistant Manager), he did videography of inspection proceedings. During evidence, the CD was played and PW4 identified the video contained in the CD Ex.PW2/1.
(5.4) PW1 HC Anand Pal is the IO of the case. This witness deposed that on 15.11.2019, the complaint (Ex.PW2/6) lodged by Sh. Anil Kumar (Assistant Manager) was marked to him. Thereafter, he made endorsement on the complaint and handed over the same to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. Accordingly, the Duty Officer registered FIR No.423/2019 and marked the investigation of the case to him. The copy of FIR has been brought on record as Ex.PW1/1. Thereafter, on 25.12.2019, he visited the inspected premises and served accused Ranjit Kaur with the notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/2. She joined the investigation and produced copy of her Aadhar Card and electricity bill which have been brought on record as Mark A (colly). He bound down the accused Ranjit Kaur to appear before the Court vide Pabandinama is Ex.PW1/3. PW1 further deposed that on 28.12.2019, he again visited the inspected premises and served the accused Kuldeep Singh with the notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/4. Accused Kuldeep Singh joined the investigation on the same day and produced copy of his Aadhar Card and electricity bill which have been brought on record as Mark B (colly). PW1 also deposed that on the same day, he recorded statements of neighbours namely Sh. Phool Chand Jain, s/o Sh. Dharam Sahai Jain and Devender Pal Singh s/o Yashpal Singh U/s 161 Cr.P.C in respect to the ownership of the inspected premises and it FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 6 of 17 came to notice that inspected premises belongs to the accused persons at the relevant time. He bound down the accused Kuldeep Singh to appear before the Court vide Pabandinama Ex.PW1/5. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. What have you to say?
6. Statements of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons did not deny the factum of inspection of their premises. They also admitted the fact that electricity meter No.25313899 was lying installed at the inspected premises in the name of accused Ranjit Kaur and the said meter was removed by the lineman during inspection and electricity of the inspected premises was restored with new meter No.55227550. Accused persons did not deny that accused Ranjit Kaur was the registered consumer and accused Kuldeep Singh was the user at the relevant time. Accused persons also did not deny the fact that they were present at the spot at the time of inspection and necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was done by the videographer. However, accused persons denied that they committed direct theft of electricity. Accused persons stated that they have already settled the matter and settlement amount has been paid and an NOC has also been issued. Accused persons did not lead any evidence to their defence.
7. Final arguments have been heard from the Ld. Addl. PP as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. During the course of arguments, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that at the time of inspection, electricity meter No.25313899 was found installed for the inspected premises but the accused persons were found indulged in direct theft of electricity. It is further submitted that accused Ranjit Kaur is the registered consumer and FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 7 of 17 accused Kuldeep Singh is the user. Being registered consumer, accused Ranjit Kaur abetted accused Kuldeep Singh to commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, it is argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
8. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, argued that accused persons are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons have not committed any theft of electricity. It is further submitted that matter has already been settled with the complainant company and settlement amount has already been paid and an NOC has already been issued.
9. Before proceeding further and before dealing with the factual aspects of the present case, it is deemed appropriate to firstly specify and discuss the relevant provision of the Act which is required to be gone into for appropriate disposal of the case. The present case pertains to sections 135/150 of the Act. The provisions of sections 135/150 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 FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 8 of 17 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:
Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use -
(i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity;
(ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity:
Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any other source or generating station:
Provided also that if it is provided that any artificial means or means not authorized 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.
Section 150. Abetment. - (1) Whoever abets an offence FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 9 of 17 punishable under this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
(2) Without prejudice to any penalty or fine which may be imposed or prosecution proceeding which may be initiated under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, if any officer or other employee of the Board or the licensee enters into or acquiesces in any agreement to do, abstains from doing, permits, conceals or connives at any act or thing whereby any theft of electricity is committed, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 135, sub-section (1) of section 136, section 137 and section 138, the license or certificate of competency or permit or such other authorization issued under the rules made or deemed to have been made under this Act to any person who acting as an electrical contractor, supervisor or worker abets the commission of an offence punishable under sub-section (1) of section 135, sub-
section (1) of section 136, section 137, or section 138, on his conviction for such abetment, may also be cancelled by the licensing authority:
Provided that no order of such cancellation shall be made without giving such person an opportunity of being heard.
10. There is a presumption mentioned in the third proviso of Section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which reads 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".
11. As per prosecution case, at the time of inspection, electricity meter No.25313899 was found installed at the inspected premises and the user/accused Kuldeep Singh was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. Accused Ranjit Kaur was found to be FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 10 of 17 registered consumer. Being registered consumer, accused Ranjit Kaur abetted the accused Kuldeep Singh to commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, the onus was on the prosecution to prove these allegations against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
12. PW2 Sh. Anil Kumar (Assistant Manager), PW3 Sh. Rajeev Kumar (Lineman) and PW4 Sh. Parveen Kumar (Videographer) are the material witnesses in this case. PW2 was heading the inspection team. PW2, PW3 and PW4 have corroborated the allegations made in the complaint Ex.PW2/6 and their testimony is in conformity with the documents i.e. inspection report Ex.PW2/2, load report Ex.PW2/3 and seizure memo Ex.PW2/4. PW2 also brought on record the electricity bill as Ex.PW2/5.
13. PW1/IO HC Anand Pal deposed that during investigation, it came to notice that the inspected premises belongs to the accused persons and at the time of inspection, accused Kuldeep Singh was the user and accused Ranjit Kaur was the registered consumer at the relevant time.
14. It is clear from the testimony of PW2 and PW3 that on 14.10.2019, at about 11.30 am, an inspection was carried out at the premises of the accused persons by the inspecting team members/officials of complainant company and at the time of inspection, one electricity meter No.25313899 was found installed in the name of accused Ranjit Kaur. It is also clear that accused Ranjit Kaur is the registered consumer and accused Kuldeep Singh was the user and aforesaid meter was removed by the lineman and seized at the spot at the time of inspection as the FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 11 of 17 accused/user was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires which were connected at phase to phase and neutral to neutral at the terminal of the aforesaid meter and the meter box seal and terminal seals were found tampered and all these facts have not been disputed by the accused persons during cross-examination of PW2 and PW3 as well as in the statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused persons did not deny in their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C that at the time of inspection they were present at the spot and necessary videography was done by PW4 Sh. Parveen Kumar and the CD containing videography of the inspection proceedings was brought on record as Ex.PW2/1. PW2 and PW3 also deposed that the documents namely inspection report, load report and seizure memo were prepared at the spot and PW2 and PW3 have brought on record the inspection report as Ex.PW2/2, load report as Ex.PW2/3 and seizure memo as Ex.PW2/4. PW2 has also brought on record the electricity bill as Ex.PW2/5. PW2 and PW3 also deposed that the inspection documents were prepared at the spot and same were tendered to the user/accused Kuldeep Singh who signed the same at point Z and accused persons have not disputed this fact in the cross-examination of PW2 and PW3 as well as in their statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused persons have not disputed the authenticity of the video contained in the CD Ex.PW2/1. Accused persons have also not disputed the correctness of the assessment of the load assessed by the officials of complainant company which is mentioned in the load report (Ex.PW3/2). Accused persons have also admitted the fact that at the time of inspection they were present at the spot and necessary FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 12 of 17 videography of the inspection proceedings was done by videographer. Thus, the factum of inspection, preparation of inspection documents, presence of accused persons at the spot at the time of inspection, removal of the meter no.25313899 and videography of the inspection proceedings done by videographer stand proved.
15. PW2 and PW3 have clearly deposed that meter no.25313899 was found installed at the inspected premises but the accused/user was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. It is also clear from the statement of PW1 as well as statements of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C that the inspected premises belongs to accused persons. It is also clear from prosecution evidence and statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C that at the time of inspection, accused Ranjit Kaur was the registered consumer and accused Kuldeep Singh was the user. In case, accused Ranjit Kaur was unaware that accused Kuldeep Singh has committed direct theft of electricity then she ought to have brought this fact to the notice of the complainant and she ought to have disassociated herself from the said illegal activity of the accused Kuldeep Singh. However, it is clear that accused Ranjit Kaur did not take any action in this regard against the accused Kuldeep Singh and her aforesaid conduct speaks for itself that she was well aware of the illegal act of the accused Kuldeep Singh. Thus, under these facts and circumstances, it can be very well said that once the accused Ranjit Kaur had come to know about the said illegal activity on the part of the accused Kuldeep Singh, she ought to have taken appropriate action against him and she was also duty bound to inform the complainant about the same, however, she did not do the needful which shows that FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 13 of 17 accused Ranjit Kaur was fully aware about the said illegal activity being committed by the accused Kuldeep Singh. Thus, under these circumstances, it can be very well said that accused Ranjit Kaur has abetted the offence of direct theft of electricity. Thus, in view of settled provision of section 150 of the Act, the accused Ranjit Kaur being registered consumer is liable for the offence of abetment as she let the user/accused Kuldeep Singh commit direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. Accused persons have simply denied the allegations and stated that they were not indulged in any type of theft of electricity. Accused persons have not disputed the fact that the lineman removed the aforesaid meter. Accused persons have neither disputed their presence in the video contained in the CD Ex.PW2/1 nor the identity of the inspected premises as depicted in the video contained in the CD. Furthermore, accused persons admitted that aforesaid meter was removed at the time of inspection. During evidence before the court, the CD (Ex.PW2/1) containing video clip of inspection proceedings was played before the court which showed the manner in which user/accused was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires.
16. In view of the statutory presumption mentioned in the third proviso of section 135 (1) of the Act, once the prosecution successfully establishes the charges against the accused regarding the theft of electricity, it is to be presumed that accused has committed theft of electricity unless accused brings some evidence on record to rebut the presumption. In view of the discussions made in the preceding paras, it is held that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 14 of 17 persons that accused Ranjit Kaur was registered consumer and accused Kuldeep Singh was the user who was indulged in direct theft of electricity and accused Ranjit Kaur was well aware of the same and therefore, in view of the third proviso of section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act 2003, it is to be presumed that accused Kuldeep Singh was indulged in direct theft of electricity, in connivance with accused Ranjit Kaur, if they are unable to rebut the statutory presumption.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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'."
18. In view of the settled law, now it is to be seen if the accused persons have taken any defence to rebut the aforesaid statutory presumption. Accused persons have simply stated in their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that they have already settled the dispute and settlement amount has already been paid by them and an NOC has also been issued. Accused persons did not lead any evidence to their defence evidence. If the accused Kuldeep Singh was not indulged in direct theft of electricity or that he was using the electricity through any legal sources, then the accused Ranjit Kaur, who is the registered consumer, was liable to rebut the statutory presumption by disproving the allegations FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 15 of 17 made in the complaint by leading relevant defence evidence. It is admitted position of fact that accused Ranjit Kaur was the registered consumer at the relevant time and accused Kuldeep Singh was the user in the inspected premises. It is clear from the evidence led by prosecution that at the time of inspection, accused/user was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. Accused persons have not brought any material on record or lead any evidence to disprove all these allegations. Thus, it is held that accused persons have 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".
19. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Kuldeep Singh was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. It is FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 16 of 17 also proved on record that accused Ranjit Kaur was the registered consumer at the relevant time and thus, accused Ranjit Kaur is guilty of abetment of offence of direct theft of electricity and accused Kuldeep Singh is the guilty of direct theft of electricity. Accordingly accused Ranjit Kaur is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 135 r/w section 150 of the Electricity Act 2003 and accused Kuldeep Singh is held guilty for the offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act 2003.
Digitally
signed by
AJAY AJAY GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2022.09.05
17:07:34 -
0400
(Ajay Gupta)
Addl. Sessions Judge (Electricity)
East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
Announced in open
court 05.09.2022
FIR No.423/2019 State vs Kuldeep Singh etc 17 of 17