Delhi District Court
Cc No. 266/17, Tpddl vs . Manoj Page 1 Of 11 on 22 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, ELECTRICITY COURT, DISTT. NORTH
WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CC No. 266/2017
P.S. Kanjhawala
U/S. 135 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited
Erstwhile (North Delhi Power Limited)
Regd. Office at:
Grid Sub Station Building
Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp
Delhi-110 009
Also At:
EAC, HRDI, Sector-3, Rohini,
Delhi-110 085 ........Complainant
VS.
MANOJ
S/O SHRI Sat Naryana
Fields NR TPDDL P/M/S/STN "Ram Swarup Wala"
Pole No. HT512-8/4/1/5/8 & 9
R/O; Village Qutubhgarh, Delhi-110039
........ Accused
Date of Institution 03.07.2017
Date of Reserving judgment 15.11.2022
Date of Judgment 22.11.2022
CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 1 of 11
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the team of TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'TPDDL') comprising of Shri Netra Pal Singh (Sr. Manager), Sh. Sandeep Kumar (Executive Officer) alongwith photographer Sh. Prem Chand of M/s. Studio Prem Vishu visited at fields near TPDDL P/M S/STN "Ram Sawroop Wala", pole no. HT 512-8/4/1/5/8 and 9, village Qutubhgarh, Delhi-39 and recorded the following observations in their inspection report:-
"At the time of inspection user was found indulge in direct theft of electricity by direct illegal tapping from TPDDL PM sub station LT Box through illegal three core cable without any meter".
2. The total connected load was found to be 7.460 KW. One person namely Sh. Raj Singh @ Thoki was present at site, who was watering the fields, who informed TPDDL inspecting team that he was working as a daily worker and the fields belongs to accused Manoj. The photographer Sh. Prem Chand took the photographs of the site in question and conducted the videography as well. After signing the inspection report, the same was served to the person, who was present at site, who refused to sign and received the same.
CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 2 of 11Inspecting team prepared the seizure memo after signing the same served to the person, who were present at the site, who refused to sign and receive the same. The inspection report is Ex. PW1/1 and the seizure memo is Ex. PW1/2. Inspecting team prepared the site plan, which is Ex. PW1/3. Photographs are Ex. PW3/A1 to A33 (colly). CD is Ex. PW3/B. Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, is Ex. PW3/C. PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE:-
3. The complainant examined two witnesses during pre summoning evidence. They exhibited the inspection report, seizure memo, photographs and certificate U/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. On the basis of the complainant documents, the accused was summoned U/s 135 of the Electricity Act.
CHARGE:-
4. The accused was heard on the point of charge. A prima facie case was made out U/s. 135 of the Electricity Act against the accused and accordingly, charge was framed.
COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE:-
5. PW1 Shri Parveen Kumar (Raiding Team Member), who deposed that on 16.12.2015, he alongwith Shri Netrapal Singh, Sh. Sandeep Kumar and Photographer Prem had gone to the fields of the Manoj S/o Sh. Sat Naryan at Village Qutubhgarh, Delhi, there was a transformer by the name of Ram Sawroop Wala Transformer from which LT main of the said transformer, a three core illegal CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 3 of 11 cable was going in the fields and tube-well of the accused and a motor of 10 HP (7.460 KW) was being run there without any meter. One person namely Raj Singh @ Tokhi was present, who was watering the fields, who informed us that he was working as a daily worker and fields belongs to the accused Manoj. The photographer took the photographs of the site and conducting the videography as well. The inspection report was prepared at the site and the same bears his signature. The inspection report is Ex. PW1/1. The inspection report was tried to be served upon Sh. Raj Singh @ Tokhi, but he refused to sign and accept the same. The material i.e. three core black colour cable approximately 45 meters in length was seized from the fields under the seizure memo Ex. PW1/2, bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that the said seizure memo was also tried to be served upon Sh. Raj Singh, but he refused to sign the same. The site plan was also prepared at the site, which is Ex. PW1/3, bears his signature at point A. The place of theft is shown at point X and theft was being committed from point Y. Sh. Raj Singh @Tokhi is also shown in the photographs at serial no. 23 and the same is Ex. PW1/A23. The witness had correctly identified the case property as Ex.P1.
6. PW-2 Sh. Sandeep Kumar, who deposed on the same same lines as deposed by PW-1. He identified the case property as Ex. P-1.
7. PW-3 (Photographer) Sh. Prem, who deposed that on CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 4 of 11 that day, he was accompanied the inspecting team for taking the photographs, where he took the 33 photographs and concluded the videography. The same are exhibited as Ex. PW3/A1 to A33. CD of photography and videography is Ex. PW3/B and certificate is Ex. PW3/C. He further deposed that he took the photographs while standing just 4-5 steps from Ram Sawroop Wala transformer. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED:-
8. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.c. of the accused has been recorded. All incriminating evidence was put to the accused. He stated that he was not aware about the fact that his fields were inspected. He stated that he did not aware about any theft case. He led the defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:-
9. The accused examined himself as DW-1. He deposed that he is a farmer by profession and having fields in Village Qutabgarh, but his entire fields were very far away from the Ram Sawroop Wala Transformer. He further deposed that his fields are about four killa away from the said Transformer. No such raid was ever conducted on 16.12.2015 on his any of of the fields and he has no relation with the said raid. He further deposed that TPDDL officials have fabricated and manipulated the site, while in actual the photographs and videography placed on record in the present case, do not belongs to any of his fields. He further deposed that neither the photographs of the well showing tube well nor the seized wire CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 5 of 11 belongs to him. No such tube well is in his fields. He further deposed that he has been falsely implicated in the instant work. No such person works in his fields as alleged by the TPDDL officials in the inspection report/raid in the present case.
APPREICATION OF EVIDENCE:-
10. Section 135 of the Electricity Act provides as under :-
"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 authorised;
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:"
10(a). In the case in hand the accused has been facing trial for CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 6 of 11 indulging direct theft of electricity as provided under Section 135(1)
(a) of Electricity Act, 2003. To prove its case the complainant was required to establish:-
(a) That the accused Manoj has indulged in theft of electricity by direct illegal tapping from TPDDL Pole bearing no. HT 512-8/4/1/5/8.
(b) That the accused Manoj has committed the theft by use of illegal three core cable without any meter.
(c) That the accused Manoj was illegally consuming the electricity for running tubewell to water his agricultural land.
Identification of the agricultural land:-
10(b). The complainant who has been examined as PW-1 has deposed that accused is the owner of the agricultural land for which the theft of electricity was being committed. The photographs (Ex. PW3/A-1 to Ex. PW3/A-33), which has been relied upon by the complainant reveals that the site in question is surrounded by agricultural fields without any fences. To establish that site in question belongs to the accused, the complainant was first required to prove on record that the site in question was on the agricultural land of the accused. It was for the complainant to bring on record the khasra number for identification of the agricultural field. The complainant and the testimony of the witnesses are silent about the khasra number of the agricultural field. In cases where site in question is located on the open agricultural land the site plan plays a CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 7 of 11 significant role to prove the case of the complainant. The site plan, which is Ex. PW1/3 has just shown place of theft at point X and the place from which the theft was being committed at point Y. The khasra number and the boundaries of the agricultural field surrounding the point X has not been mentioned on the site plan. Moreover, the site plan is silent about the distance between the point X and point Y. It has been brought out in the cross examination of PW-1 that revenue officials were not called to ascertain the location and number of the agricultural field, where the theft of electricity was being committed. The relevant cross examination of PW-1 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"....No other person was called for statement. No other person such as Patwari, Numberdar were called to ascertain the number and location of the filed.
It is correct that I have not shown the distance or marking of any Dola/fields lying in between the Ramsaroop Wala Transformer and the Tube Well pump in question....".
10(c). Moreover, it is the case of the complainant that they identified the agricultural field on the statement of one Sh. Raj Singh @ Thoki. The complainant has failed to examine the said person on the basis of which the identity of the agricultural field has been accepted by the complainant. It has been even brought out in the cross examination of PW-2 that the site plan does not contain the directions to ascertain the site in question. The relevant cross examination of PW-2 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 8 of 11"....We identified the filed only on the statement of abovesaid Raj Singh and no other method was used by us to identify the field......
.......I cannot tell the exact distance between the tube-well and the transformer. I also cannot tell how many KILLAS/fields were situated between tube-well and the transformer........
.......It is correct that we had not shown the directions even in site sketch Ex. PW1/3.....".
10(d). This court has no hesitation to hold that the site plan which has been relied upon by the complainant is incomplete and the benefit of the same has to be given to the accused. 10(e). It is observed here that there are number of fields belonging to the different persons at the place of inspection. The fields can be identified through its Khasra Number. In the revenue record, the owner's name is mentioned against the Khasra Number. Complainant had an opportunity to bring on record Khasra Girdawari to show the possession of accused on the alleged date of theft, however, the complainant has failed to bring on record the relevant revenue records. The raiding team of the complainant acted upon the advice of the so called labourer one Sh. Raj Singh, whose presence has not been shown in any of the documents and named the present accused as the user of the stolen electricity for the purpose of tubewell in the respective fields. It has not been proved by any document as to how the fields are connected to the present accused. It is observed here that mere naming the accused as the user of the electricity is not sufficient unless the accused is connected to the fields in question.
CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 9 of 11Case property:-
10(f). The case property consisting three core cable from which allegedly theft was being committed has been brought on record as Ex. P-1 in examination in chief of PW-1. Though the witness has identified the case property, however, the case property which was produced before the court was in unsealed condition. The relevant examination of PW-1 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"...at this stage Shri Ram Niwas, Store Keeper of the complainant company is present and has produced one unsealed plastic katta, the same is opened and one black colur three core cable is taken out and the same is shown to the witness....".
10(g). There is nothing on record to show that the plastic katta in which the case property was brought contained the particulars of the present case. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain that the case property which has been produced was the same case property which has been seized at the time of the inspection.
10(h). It is the case of the complainant that the electricity was being used to run tubewell at the site in question. There is no explanation in the complaint or in the testimony of the witnesses why the electricity motor which was being allegedly used was not seized at the time of inspection. Moreover, the photographs which has been relied upon by the complainant does not show the clear presence of the tubewell. The relevant cross examination of PW-1 is reproduced CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 10 of 11 below for ready reference:-
"...Q. I put it you, can you show the electricity motor used in the direct theft in question ?
Ans. The witness shows one uncleared photograph Mark X and further states that there was darkness in the well.
We did not seize the abovesaid electricity motor from the site in question....".
10(i). There is inherent and apparent lacunas in the case of the complainant, which has remained unexplained. The benefit of the same has to be given to the accused. The complainant has miserably failed to prove that the accused Manoj has indulged in theft of electricity.
CONCLUSION:-
11. In view of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused stands acquitted. He is directed to file bail bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Digitally signed record room after due compliance. JITENDRA by JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.11.22 02:01:20 +0530 Announced in the open court (JITENDRA SINGH) today i.e. on 22.11.2022 ASJ (Electricity)/ Distt. N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 11 of 11 CC No. 266/17, TPDDL Vs. Manoj Page 12 of 11