Delhi District Court
Acting Through: Sh. Binay Kumar vs . on 12 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT
(ELECTRICITY), CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,
DELHI
Old Case No. 1563/14
New Case No. 323703/16
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.,
Having its Registered office at:
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi110019
And its Corporate, Legal and Enforcement Cell
At Andrews Ganj, Next to Andrews Ganj Market,
New Delhi110049.
Acting through: Sh. Binay Kumar
Authorized Representative .........Complainant
Vs.
Guru Baksh Singh (User) (Owner)
S/o late Saran Singh,
R/o J5/101MSF, LS
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi110027,
near Nehru Market,
Pole No. JKPA759 .................Accused
Date of Institution : 09.12.2014
Date of Judgment : 12.12.2019
Final Order : Acquitted
BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 1
JUDGMENT
1). The complainant company i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (in short BRPL) has filed the present complaint case under Section 135 r/w Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') against the accused praying that accused be summoned, tried and punished as per law and for determining the civil liability of the accused.
2). The brief facts in narrow compass, relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present case are that as per complaint, present complaint has been filed by the complainant company acting through the Authorized RepresentativeSh. Binay Kumar who has been authorized vide letter of authority dated 23.10.2006. It is also stated that as per direction of DGM, an inspection was carried out on 04.07.2014 by the joint BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 2 inspection team of the complainant company at J5/10/MSF, LS, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi110027 (hereinafter referred as subject premises). The inspection team of the complainant company comprised of Sh. Rajeev RanjanAsst. Manager, Sh. Virender Kr.JE and Sh. AmardeepF/E. It is also stated that during the course of inspection, it was found that no meter existed at site and accused was indulged in direct theft of electricity with the help of illegal red and black colour copper of size 10 mm sq. and length of 1 meter wire. The total connected load of the premises was checked, assessed and computed and same was found to be 8.268 KW/DX/DT. The illegal wire was also seized. The inspection report was prepared. The visual of the inspection was taken by Sh. Virender.
It is also stated that the accused was using electricity illegally, by drawing the same dishonestly, from the complainant's system by using artificial means and by tampering the meter. Consequently, an amount of Rs. BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 3 1,78,788/ is payable to the complainant by the accused for the wrongful abstraction, consumption, theft and use of electricity. Therefore, an assessment bill for theft of electricity has been raised, computed on the basis of a bill load and as per the applicable tariff. In given fact and circumstances of the case, present complaint case has been filed.
3). The complainant company led the presummoning evidence. Vide order dt. 02.09.2015, the accused had been summoned to face the trial for the offence alleged against him.
4) It is to note here that vide order dated 09.04.2019, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. has been served upon to the accused for the offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5). In this case, the complainant company has examined BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 4 04 witnesses, so as to prove its case namely PW01 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, PW02Sh. Amardeep Singh, PW03Sh. Rajesh Arora and PW04Sh. Virender Kumar.
6). PW1 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan testified that on 04.07.2014 at about 1.00 P.M., as per the direction of DGMBusiness, he alongwith four persons namely himself, Virender KumarJE, AmardeepField Executive and Rajesh PandeyLineman visited the premises bearing No. J5/101M, 2 nd floor, left side and found supply was connected directly from three phase bus bar with the help of red and black colour cables of size 10 sq. mm and length 1 meter approx each. After that, they had checked the connected load and found that total connected load was 8.26 KW. Photographs of the connected load was captured at the time of inspection and removed the illegal wires i.e. red and black colour cables of size 10 sq. mm and length 1 meter BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 5 approx each and were seized at the time of inspection. They deposited the seized material in the office alongwith inspection report already EX. CW2/1, load report already EX. CW2/2, seizure memo already EX. CW2/3 and photographs. At the time of inspection, Guru Baksh Singh and his son were present at the site. At the time of inspection, there was no meter at site. The entry of the inspected premises was from back side. Bus bar was installed at the ground floor of the inspected premises and at the time of inspection, it was found open.
7). PW2 Amardeep Singh testified that as per the DGM direction, they visited the site bearing No. J-5/101M, 2 nd Floor, Left side and they found that there was no meter and electricity was running directly. They did the videography and also assessed the connected load and they also prepared the inspection report already Ex. CW2/1 at site and submitted the same in the office. Inspection report was prepared in his own handwriting.
BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 6
8). PW3 Rajesh Arora testified that he was authorized representative of the complainant company duly authorized by the General Power of Attorney executed on 10.01.2018 by the CEO namely Sh. Amal Sinha duly notorized with serial No. 251/18, photocopy of the same which was selfattested was Ex. PW3/1. Present complaint already EX. CW1/1 had been filed by Sh. Binay Kumar which bore his signature at point A. He identified the signature of Sh. Binay Kumar as he had seen him signing and writing during the course of his employment with the complainant company. Photocopy of the Authority dated 23.10.2006 issued in favour of Sh. Binay Kumar by the complainant company was already Ex. CW1/2. The complaint was true and correct.
9). PW04Sh. Virender Kumar testified that o n 04.07.2014 at about 1.00 P.M, they went there and inspected there. There, three phase bus bar was installed at ground floor and through this bus bar, there was theft of electricity at the second floor with the help of red and black colour wire size 10 mm sq. At the time of inspection, he was with Tops company. Being the videographer, he did the BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 7 videography there.
He also testified that he could identify the videography if shown to him.
At that stage, a CD found kept in envelope on judicial file was taken out and same was played and it ran only for few seconds.
After seeing contents of the same, the witness stated that it was the same videography which was done on the day of inspection.
10). Thereafter, statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C of accused has been recorded, in which he has denied the allegations levelled against him. He also stated that he did not know about the filing of the complainant case and the witnesses were the interested witnesses of the complainant company and falsely implicated him in the present case being the officials of the complainant company. He also stated that he was innocent and he had not committed any alleged offence of electricity theft BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 8 and he had been falsely implicated in the present case.
11. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record as well as relevant provisions.
The provision of Regulation 52 (ix) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulation, 2007, is reproduced as under:
(ix) The report shall be signed by the Authorized Officer and each member of the inspection team and the same must be handed over to the consumer or his/her representative at site immediately under proper receipt. In case of refusal by the consumer or his/her representative to either accept or give a receipt, a copy of inspection report must be pasted at a conspicuous place in/outside the premises and photographed. Simultaneously, the report shall be sent to the consumer under Registered Post.
In this present matter as per the case of the complainant, PW01Sh. Rajiv Ranjan and PW02Sh. Amardeep Singh are star material complainant witnesses as they were members of inspection team.
BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 9
It is to note here that as per the testimony of PW01 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, they deposited the inspection report already Ex. CW2/1, Load Report already Ex. CW2/2, Seizure Memo already Ex. CW2/3 and at the time of inspection, Guru Baksh Singh and his son were present at the site.
Furthermore, as per the testimony of PW02Sh. Amardeep Singh, they prepared the inspection report already Ex. CW2/1 at site and submitted the same in the office and inspection report was prepared in his own handwriting.
It is relevant to pen down here that neither PW01 nor PW02 testified regarding offering, refusal and pasting of the alleged inspection report.
It is to note here that perusal of alleged Inspection Report Ex. CW2/1 shows that nothing has been mentioned regarding offering, refusal and pasting of any alleged report. BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 10
It is also to note here that no document has been proved on record that the accused had been served with the alleged inspection report through registered post.
Thus, complainant company failed to prove that alleged inspection report was ever served upon the accused. Therefore, the inspection team has not complied with the abovesaid mandatory regulation which certainly goes against the complainant company.
It is also to note here that as per the testimony of PW01Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, there were four members of inspection team namely Rajiv Ranjan, Virender KumarJE, Amardeep Field Executive and Rajesh PandeyLineman.
It is also worthwhile to mention here that as per crossexamination of PW02Sh. Amardeep Singh, there were five members in the inspection team.
BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 11
Here, it is said that there is material contradiction in the testimonies of the of PW01 and PW02 regarding alleged members of the alleged inspection team. As per the testimony of PW01, there were four members in the alleged inspection team but as per the crossexamination of PW02, there were five members in the alleged inspection team.
Here view of the Court is that contradiction in the number of team members of alleged inspection team creates doubt which certainly goes against the case of the complainant company.
It is also very relevant to pen down here that perusal of the alleged inspection report Ex. PW2/1, it is found that only three signatures are appearing.
Here, it is said that for the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that there were four or five members in the alleged inspection team then what stopped the alleged other one or two BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 12 member/s of alleged inspection team to sign the inspection report.
In light of abovesaid discussion, view of the Court is that Regulation 52 (ix) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulation, 2007 has not been complied with by the alleged inspection team members which certainly goes against the case of complainant company.
It is also to note here that as per the crossexamination of PW01Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, they reached at the inspected premises at 1.00 P.M. and stayed there about 3035 minutes but as per the crossexamination of PW02Sh. Amardeep Singh, they left the office at about 9.00 AM and they reached at the subject premises at about 1.00 P.M. and for completing the inspection proceedings, around 1 to 1.5 hours might have taken by the inspection team.
BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 13
In light of above, here, view of the Court is that there is material contradiction in the statement of PW01 and PW02 regarding staying/completion of inspection proceedings on the date of alleged inspection which certainly goes against the case of the complainant company.
It is also relevant to pen down here that as per the testimony of PW01, they found supply was connected directly from three phase bus bar with the help of red and black colour cables of size 10 sq. mm and length 1 meter approx. each. Photographs of the connected load was captured at the time of inspection and removed the illegal wires i.e. red and black colour cabls of size 10 sq. mm and length 1 meter approx. each and were seized at the time of inspection and they deposited the seized material in the office.
It is to note here that as per the testimony of PW02 BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 14 Amardeep Singh, they visited the site and found that there was no meter and electricity was running directly.
It is relevant to pen down here that PW02 did not testify that by which means, electricity was running directly and also did not testify regarding removal, seizure of the case property and depositing of the alleged seized material.
It will not be out of place to mention here that none of abovenamed PWs testified that they can identify the alleged case property if shown to them and no such alleged wire were produced in the Court during the testimony of PW01 and PW02 who as per case of complainant company are star material witnesses of the complainant company. This fact also certainly goes against the case of the complainant company.
In light of above, here it is said that complainant company failed to prove that abovesaid illegal wire was removed and seized and also failed to prove that the accused was indulged in direct theft of electricity through the abovesaid BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 15 illegal wires i.e. red and black colour cabls of size 10 sq. mm and length 1 meter approx. each as testified by PW01. These fact also go against the case of the complainant company.
It is to note here that as per the testimony of PW04 Sh. Virender Kumar, on 04.07.2019 at about 1.00 P.M., they went there and inspected there and being the videographer, he did the videography there.
It is to note here that when a CD which on judicial file played , it ran only for few seconds and after seeing the same, PW04 stated that it was the same videography which was done on the day of inspection.
It is relevant to pen down here that the complainant company has not relied upon the requisite certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, so as to prove the alleged videography EX. CW2/5. Thus, alleged videography have not BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 16 been proved in the present case in accordance with law. Therefore, the alleged videography Ex. CW2/5 is of no help for the case of the complainant company.
In this case, the inspection team has not joined the independent public persons during alleged inspection.
It is relevant to pen down here that No PW testified regarding joining of public witness.
It is also relevant to pen down here that perusal of alleged inspection report Ex.CW2/1 also, it is found that nothing has been mentioned that any efforts were made by the alleged inspection team to join the public persons in the alleged inspection proceedings. Therefore, nonjoining of the public persons during alleged inspection also goes against the case of the complainant company.
BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 17
So far as PW03Sh. Rajesh Arora is concerned, he is formal witness. He only testified regarding filing of the present complaint case and during crossexamination, he admitted that he did not have personal knowledge of the facts of the present case.
In view of abovediscussion, the complainant company has failed to prove the offence alleged against accused namely Guru Baksh Singh beyond reasonable doubt in the present case. Thus, the accused namely Guru Baksh Singh is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, accused namely Guru Baksh Singh is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Bail bond of accused stands canceled and his surety, if any, is also discharged. Amount, if any, deposited by the accused as a condition for bail or in pursuance to interim order of the court qua BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 18 the theft assessment bill raised by the complainant company on the basis of alleged inspection dated 04.07.2019 be released by the complainant company after expiry of the period of appeal. It is to note here that bail bond U/s 437 (A) Cr.P.C. of accused has been furnished Digitally signed and accepted. by REKHA REKHA Date:
2019.12.12 16:11:40 +0530 Announced in open court (Rekha ) on day of 12th December, 2019 ASJ(Special Court) Electricity/Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi BRPL Vs. Guru Baksh Singh CC No. 323703/16 19