Delhi District Court
Brpl vs . Sanjay Khanna & Anr. Cis No.643228/16 ... on 27 July, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, THE
SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Complaint Case No. : 1027/16
Police Station : Khanpur, New Delhi
U/s : 135 & 138 of Electricity Act, 2003
CIS No. : 643228/16
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
A company duly incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi110019
and its Corporate, Legal and Enforcement
Cell at Andrews Ganj,
Near Andrews Ganj Market,
New Delhi110049.
Acting through Sh. Ashutosh Kumar,
(Authorised Representative)
...Complainant
Versus
1. Sanjay Khanna(User)
2. Mr. Kuldeep Singh (R/C)
At: Kh. No. 451, G/F, Neb Sarai Village,
New Delhi110068 ...Accused
Complaint instituted on : 26.07.2016
Judgment reserved on : 18.07.2018
Judgment pronounced on : 27.07.2018
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 1 of 23
2
JUDGMENT
1. A complaint U/sec. 151 r/w/sec. 154 (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for offence punishable U/sec. 135 & 138
of the Act was filed against the accused Sanjay Khanna and Kuldeep Singh.
Determination of civil liability against accused has also been prayed for.
2. The brief facts of the case as per complaint filed on behalf of complainant
company are that the officials of the MMG (Meter Management Group)
department of the complainant replaced the faulty/defective single phase
electronic meter bearing no. 2362602 (hereinafter referred as meter in
question) installed in the name of accused Kuldeep Singh against the CA No.
102298188 from the premises bearing No. KH. No. 451, Ground Floor, Neb
Sarai Village, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as premises in question). The
removed meter was sealed in a bag no. 675587 with seal no. 561703 and sent
to the meter testing laboratory for further testing of meter with an intimation
letter dated 18.10.2014 to the accused that he may witness the testing/analysis
of meter in laboratory.
3. The removed meter was tested in laboratory on 17.11.2014 and as per meter
testing/analysis report no. BRPL 141104576 dated 17.11.2014, the plastic seal
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 2 of 23
3
and hologram seal were found refixed, meter top cover found refixed and
illegal resoldering found on phase CT output location and neutral CT output
location, thus it was concluded that meter was tampered.
4. It is the case of the complainant company that on the basis of said lab report,
an inspection team headed by Sh. Rajeev Kumar TripathiManager
(Enforcement) of the complainant company inspected the premises of accused
on 29.12.2014 at about 02.50 p.m. During inspection, premises in question
was used and occupied by the accused persons namely Sanjay Khanna (User)
and Kuldeep Singh (Registered Consumer). The inspection team prepared the
inspection report, load report and seizure memo as per lab report at site.
Videography was also conducted by the joint inspection team contained in the
form of compact disc. At the time of inspection, total connected load was
found to be 14.810 KW for nondomestic purpose (wooden work).
5. A showcause notice dated 28.01.2015 was issued to the accused requesting
them to file reply by 23.02.2015 and to attend the personal hearing on
23.03.2015 before the Assessing officer of the complainant company and
accused Kuldeep Singh attended the personal hearing and vide notesheet dated
23.03.2015 he submitted that the premises in question is owned by him and
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 3 of 23
4
that he has let out the said premises to Sanjay Khanna in December on rent,
however no rent agreement was signed to this effect by him. He further
submitted that he was not aware about the tampering, if any, found in the
meter in question. After taking into consideration, all the facts and
circumstances, the Speaking Order was passed on 27.03.2015 by Assessing
Officer recording the findings of a conclusive evidence of DAE (Dishonest
Abstraction of Energy).
6. On the basis of connected load & applicable tariff, theft bill of Rs.8,57,020/
was raised. On failure of accused to pay the same, present complaint was
filed.
7. Cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec. 135 & 138 r/w/sec. 150 of the
Electricity Act was taken on 26.07.2016. The complainant examined two
witnesses in presummoning evidence. Accused were summoned for the
offence U/s 135/138 r/w section 150 of Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to
as Act) on the basis of presummoning evidence.
8. Notice U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C. for offence u/s. 135 & 138 of the Act was framed
against accused Sanjay Khanna and for offence u/s 135 & 138 r/w Section 150
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 4 of 23
5
of the Act was framed against accused Kuldeep Singh separately to which
both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, seven witnesses were produced,
which have been discussed below. Accused were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein they denied the incriminating evidence against them as false and
pleaded their innocence. Accused Sanjay Khanna has taken the plea that he
came to the inspected premises in the last week of December, 2014. He
further pleaded that he is falsely implicated in the present case as he has not
tampered with the meter. Accused Kuldeep Singh has taken the plea that
meter bearing no. 23620602 was removed by BSES team on 18.10.2014 but
the same was not tampered. Accused Kuldeep Singh has further pleaded that
he has not been given any written notice to attend the laboratory for testing of
the meter. Both accused opted to lead defence evidence, however did not
examine any witness in their defence.
10. PW1 VikasVideographer deposed that on 29.12.2014 at about 02.50 p.m, he
alongwith officials of complainant company namely Sh. Rajeev Trripathi -
Manager, Mohd. RizwanDiploma Holder and Sh. RanjanTechnician
inspected the premises being used by the accused and that upon instructions of
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 5 of 23
6
team leader, he conducted the videography of the inspection. PW1 further
deposed that the entire connected load of the premises in question was
videographed. PW1 further deposed that wooden work was going in the
factory. PW1 further deposed that the reading of meter was taken. PW1 has
identified the contents of CD as the same, recorded during inspection.
11. During crossexamination, he stated that he did not make any entry in office of
M/s Arora Photo Studio for his visit to the premises in question. PW1 stated
that documents were prepared at site in his presence but he did not videograph
the same. PW1 stated that the digital video cassette inserted in the video
camera is not placed on record. PW1 stated that person present in the studio
make CDs from the digital video cassette and there is only one person to
operate and do the same namely Mr. Arora. PW1 stated that while preparing
CD from the cassette, the same was not edited. PW 1 stated that he is always
present when the CD is prepared from the camera as the same belongs to him.
12. PW2 Rajeev Kumar TripathiSenior Manager is a member of joint inspection
team. He deposed that on 29.12.2014 he alongwith other officials of the
complainant company and videographer inspected the premises of accused on
the basis of lab report Ex. CW2/B in order to assess total connected load of
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 6 of 23
7
the premises. The total connected load of premises was found to be 14.8 KW
for wooden work/nondomestic purpose. PW2 deposed that meter in question
was sanctioned for domestic purpose, however nondomestic use was found at
site. PW2 further deposed that inspection report and load report were
prepared at site which he proved as Ex.CW2/C and Ex.CW2/D. PW2
further deposed that Sanjay Khanna was found as user at the time of
inspection and Kuldeep as registered consumer.
13. During his crossexamination, PW2 stated that premises in question was
inspected on the basis of lab report but admitted that same does not bear any
signature/authorization of the DGM. PW2 further stated that the action taken
report regarding visiting to different premises by the raiding team is kept and
maintained in the office of the complainant company and admitted that the
same is not placed on record. PW2 denied the suggestion that inspection
report and load report were not prepared at site. PW2 stated that the entire
connected load was in running condition. PW2 stated that the MDI of the
meter was approximately 10 KW at the time of inspection and the sanctioned
load as 21 KW. PW2 admitted that his role was to check details and report
the connected load. The suggestion was denied by him that the load was not
used for commercial purpose. PW2 also denied the suggestion that all the
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 7 of 23
8
reports placed on record were prepared while sitting in the office. PW2
further denied the suggestion that the load report is false and fabricated.
14. PW3 Binay Kumar is a formal witness who proved his GPA Ex.CW1/2 and
stated that he is authorized by the complainant company to sign, file and
proceed with the complaint Ex.CW1/2 given to him by the complainant.
15. During crossexamination, PW3 stated that he has not placed on record any
document supporting that the complainant company is registered under the
Companies Act. He stated that he has not placed on record any identity proof
of Mr. Arvinder Singh GujralCEO of the complainant company. He stated
that he has not placed on record any authorisation letter from the Board of
Directors of the complainant company to delegate/authorise him for the cases.
The suggestion was denied by him that he is not an authorised representative
of the complainant company.
16. PW4 Ritu Raj Sinha is Assessing Officer. He deposed that one show cause
notice Ex.CW2/F dated 28.01.2015 and one final show cause notice Ex.CW
2/G dated 27.02.2015 were issued by him to accused to file the reply and to
attend the personal hearing. Accused Kuldeep Singh attended the personal
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 8 of 23
9
hearing and made his submissions vide notesheet Ex.CW2/H1. PW4 further
stated that he considered the lab report, inspection report, load report,
consumption pattern of the meter in question as well as consumption pattern
of the new meter and passed the speaking order Ex.CW2/I. PW4 deposed
that consumption through the meter in question was only 10% of the assessed
consumption.
17. During crossexamination, PW4 stated that he did not make any enquiry by
calling the official who prepared the lab report. PW4 admitted that there is no
document on record to show that he is authorized person to pass speaking
order dated 27.03.2015. He stated that he did not examine official who
prepared the lab report and also did not examine any official from MMG
department before passing speaking order. PW4 stated that consumption with
old meter from 22.10.2013 to 26.03.2014 was 244 units per month whereas
consumption with the new meter from 18.10.2014 to 27.03.2015 was 384 units
per month. He further stated that document prepared by MMG team at the
time of removal of the old meter is Ex.CW2/A and no separate seizure memo
was prepared in this regard. PW4 denied the suggestion that Ex.CW2/A is
not a seizure memo and it is a notice to consumer to attend the meter testing
process. PW4 denied the suggestion that no notice for meter testing was
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 9 of 23
10
served to the registered consumer by the complainant company. PW4
admitted that as per Ex.CW2/B, data of removed meter was not downloaded
in the laboratory at the time of testing the same and that the said fact is not
mentioned in the speaking order and volunteered that the physical evidence of
tampering has been mentioned in the lab report.
18. PW5 Yogesh RayGET from the laboratory, who deposed that on 17.11.14,
he received a meter bearing no. 23620602 for testing/analysis in a sealed bag
no. 675587. PW5 further deposed that on physical observation of the meter
in question, it was found that the hologram seal and plastic seal were refixed
and the top cover of the meter was also found refixed. PW5 further deposed
that on the basis of internal observation of the meter, it was found that there
was an illegal resoldering on the point of phase and neutral CT output location
of the meter in question. PW5 further deposed that he tried to download the
data of the meter in question but it could not be done. PW5 further deposed
that the reason for nondownloading of data was due to the tampering with the
PC (Printed Circuit Board) of the meter by soldering/resoldering of any
foreign material. PW5 further deposed there were illegal soldering marks on
the phase CT and neutral CT output location of the meter in question shown at
point A & B on the document marked as MarkX, which he has correctly
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 10 of 23
11
identified as the same photograph taken by him in lab. PW5 further deposed
that after testing the meter, it was concluded that the meter in question was
found tampered vide meter test/analysis report prepared by him as Ex.CW
2/B. PW5 further deposed that after testing the meter in question, he resealed
the said meter in the same bag with yellow colour plastic seal bearing no.
BRPL & PS 0586954. PW5 identified one yellow colour plastic seal in torn
condition bearing no. BRPL & PS 0561703 as Ex.P1 and one single phase
electricity meter of Kaifa make bearing no. 23620602 as Ex.P2 as the same
tested by him in the laboratory.
19. During his crossexamination, he stated that lifetime of the meter is usually the
warranty of the meter. He further stated that the warranty period of the meter
in question was till August 2012. The suggestion was denied that he
intentionally did not mention the warranty period of the meter in the lab report
Ex.CW2/B. He further denied the suggestion that the meter in question was
not functioning properly due to lapse of warranty. PW5 denied the
suggestion that he has mentioned the plastic seals and holgram seals being
refixed on his guess work and volunteered that it was based on visual
observation. He denied the suggestion that the seals of the meter were intact
and not refixed. PW5 denied the suggestion that data of the meter could not
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 11 of 23
12
be downloaded as the warranty period of the meter had already expired in the
year 2012. PW5 admitted that he has not mentioned in the lab report if the
RTC of the meter was working or not but volunteered that same was not done
since data could not be downloaded from the tampered meter.
20. It is argued by ld. Counsel for the complainant company that a single phase
electronic meter bearing no. 23620602 installed at the premises of the accused
was replaced by Meter Management Group with the new electronic meter
bearing no. 27187888 and the removed meter was sent to NABL accredited
laboratory and the laboratory found that meter plastic seal and hologram seal
were refixed, meter top cover was also found refixed alongwith illegal
resoldering found on phase CT output location and neutral CT output location
and thus, the meter was declared tampered. It is further submitted that the
post and pre consumption has been considered and the recorded consumption
has been found to be on very lower side i.e. only 10% of the assessed
consumption. It is argued that meter was sanctioned for domestic purpose but
accused were indulged in using electricity for nondomestic purpose as a
factory for wooden work was being carried out from the premises of accused.
Ld. Counsel for complainant has submitted that complainant has examined
five witnesses, who proved the documents placed on record and on the basis
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 12 of 23
13
of same, it has been established that accused was indulged in theft of
electricity by way of tampering the meter in question. It is further submitted
that one of accused namely Kuldeep Singh has also attended the personal
hearing but a bald denial is not sufficient to show the innocence of accused.
21. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for accused Sanjay Khanna argued this matter
mainly on the grounds of violation of rules and regulations as mentioned in the
Delhi Electricity Regulation Commission Notification. It is further submitted
that as per Regulation 52 of DERC, the detailed procedure for booking a case
of theft of electricity is grossly violated by the complainant. Ld. Counsel for
accused further argued that when the team visited the premises of accused
they did not show any ID card that they are authorized to conduct the
inspection in terms of Regulation 52 (iii) of DERC. On the other hand, in
rebuttal to this argument, it was submitted by ld. Counsel for complainant
company that the inspection has been duly admitted by the accused persons
and hence there is no question of raising such objection that inspection was
not done as per rules prescribed in DERC.
22. It is further argued by ld. Counsel for accused that the consumption pattern
has not been considered while booking the case of theft of electricity against
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 13 of 23
14
the accused persons and accordingly, the complainant company has violated
the Regulation 52 (vi) of DERC. In rebuttal to this argument, it was argued by
ld. Counsel for the complainant that the meter in question was removed by the
team of MMG on 18.10.2014 which was further tested in the laboratory on
17.11.2014 and once the laboratory found meter tampered then the connected
load was taken. Thereafter, post and pre consumption were compared and it
was duly found that recorded consumption was on lower side i.e. 10% of the
assessed consumption hence there is no force in said argument.
23. Ld. counsel for accused Sanjay Khanna has further argued that as per DERC
guidelines, the meter removed from the premises must be tested in a NABL
accredited laboratory but the complainant company has failed to do so. In
rebuttal to this argument, it was submitted by ld. Counsel for complainant
company that the lab of complainant company is duly NABL accredited
laboratory.
24. It is further argued that as per Regulation 52 (ix) of DERC, the documents
must be handed over to the consumer at the time of inspection but the
complainant company has failed to do so. In rebuttal to this argument, ld.
Counsel for complainant company has submitted that it was duly admitted at
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 14 of 23
15
the time of personal hearing by the consumer that he was present and was duly
aware about the removal of meter from his premises by the MMG department.
It is further submitted by ld. Counsel for complainant company that it is an
implied notice.
25. It is further argued that as per Regulation 52 (x), the complainant company
was obligatory to serve notice within seven days of the inspection upon the
consumer but they failed to do so and further submitted that if such notice is
not served then the case of suspected theft shall be considered as dropped. In
rebuttal to this argument, ld. Counsel for the complainant company submitted
that a show cause notice has been duly served upon the accused and further
submitted that it has been held in number of cases by Hon'ble High Court as
well as by Hon'ble Apex Court that the guidelines as mentioned in DERC are
regulatory in nature and they cannot come in the way of statue i.e. Electricity
Act, 2003. It is argued that once the theft has been proved on the hands of
accused by tampering the meter in question then such nittygritty of rules and
regulations must be ignored in the interest of justice.
26. Ld. counsel for accused Sanjay Khanna has further argued that the CD placed
on record is without a certification under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 15 of 23
16
and thus, the contents of CD cannot be relied. In rebuttal to this argument, ld.
Counsel for the complainant company submitted that complainant company
has independently proved the case that accused were indulged in theft of
electricity by tampering the meter in question and the CD placed on record is
only an additional secondary evidence just for the assistance of the Court and
even if the CD is not considered still the complainant company has proved the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that
physical signs of tampering the meter are sufficient enough to prove the guilty
intention of accused as it has been held in catena of cases that it is the duty of
the accused to keep the meter in safe custody and if the accused has failed to
give any plausible explanation how the meter got burnt/tampered, then it is to
be understood that the accused has deliberately burnt the meter as he is the
sole beneficiary of the burnt meter.
27. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for accused Kuldeep Singh has submitted that
at the time of removal of meter, accused Kuldeep Singh was not present and
no report has been placed on record alongwith CD whether the same is
authentic or not and thereafter, ld. counsel for accused Kuldeep Singh adopted
the detailed arguments rendered by ld. Counsel for accused Sanjay Khanna.
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 16 of 23
17
28. I have heard ld. Counsel both parties and also perused the record including the
CD of videography displayed on the computer screen of the Court.
29. In the present case, there is no dispute as regards connection of accused
persons being user as well as registered consumer of the premises. It is
nowhere denied by accused Sanjay Khanna that he was not user at the
premises in question and same is the case with the accused Kuldeep Singh,
who is the registered consumer. Thus, the only question which has to be
decided is that whether meter in question was tampered on behalf of accused
persons in order to dishonestly abstract the electrical energy by artificial
means or by means not authorized by the Board.
30. In the present case, the entire focus laid by accused persons is upon that the
correct procedure has not been adopted/followed by raiding team members at
the time of inspection in the premises in question. However, as per lab report,
illegal resoldering was found on phase CT output location and neutral CT
output location and this illegal resoldering is clearly visible in the meter at
points A and B in photograph, markX, which shows that the meter in question
was subjected to record less consumption. The testimony of PW5 Yogesh
Ray reveals that at the time of checking meter in question in lab, the hologram
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 17 of 23
18
seal and plastic seal were refixed and on internal observation of the meter by
him, said witness found that there was an illegal resoldering on the phase CT
and neutral CT output location and that he tried to download the data but same
could not be done due to tampering in PCB (printed circuit board) of the
meter. The said witness, no doubt, crossexamined in detail by ld. defence
counsel, however his testimony remained unshattered.
31. Regulation 2 (m) of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Performance StandardsMetering and Billing) Regulations, 2002 says that
dishonest abstraction of energy shall mean abstraction of electrical energy
where accessibility to the internal mechanism of the metering equipment and
some collateral evidence is found to support the conclusion that meter has
been caused to record less energy than actually passing through it. It shall also
include any other means adopted by the consumer to cause the meter to stop or
to run slow.
32. In order to draw a presumption of DAE against a consumer in terms of second
proviso to section 135(1) of the Act, it must be shown by the supplier or
licensee that any artificial means or means not authorized by the Board or
licensee exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 18 of 23
19
consumer. The element of dishonesty is the main component of the definition
of theft u/s 135 of the Act. Regulation 52 (v) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code
and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 says that report prepared by the
authorized officer shall clearly indicate whether sufficient evidence
substantiating the fact that theft of energy was found or not. The details of
such evidence should be recorded in the report. To my mind, this can be
established by the complainant only by showing that consumer was
responsible for tampering in the meter by some visible means. The initial
onus lies upon the complainant and it will shift to the consumer once this onus
is discharged.
33. Hence, from the testimony of PW5 Sh. Yogesh Ray, who tested the meter in
question, as well as documents placed on record, it is duly proved that meter
in question was tampered on the hands of accused persons.
34. Further, as regards objection raised for not adopting the correct procedure, I
could lay my hands on a judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2007 on 23.10.2007 titled as Mukesh Rastogi
Vs. NDPL, wherein it has been held that:
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 19 of 23
20
(para 7) ...."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 non
crime. Theft of electricity remains a crime
irrespective of fact that inspection is valid or not.
Supreme Court in Sate and Ors. v. N.M.T. Joy
Immaculate 204(5) SCC 729 observed that
admissibility or otherwise of a piece of evidence has
to be judged having regard to the provisions of
Evidence Act. Neither Evidence Act nor Cr.P.C. 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 dated 31 st 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"
35. Irrespective of tampering found in the meter in question, the recorded
consumption found to be on lower side as the consumption recorded with new
meter was about 384 units per month from 18.10.2014 to 27.03.2015 whereas
consumption recorded with meter in question was about 244 units per month
from 22.10.2013 to 26.03.2014, which has been found to be only 10% of the
assessed consumption. Thus, there has been a variation in pre and post
consumption as consumption by the accused enhanced just after the
installation of new meter at the premises of accused. Despite that no
explanation has been given by accused in order to show as to why the
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 20 of 23
21
consumption increased just after the installation of new meter. Accused could
have explained the reason for recording less consumption with removed meter
by showing or producing any documentary evidence but failed to do so.
36. Further, the defence taken on behalf of accused Kuldeep Singh that he is not
covered in the videography or that he was not present during inspection or that
he was not aware about any tampering in the meter in question, cannot be
considered since to be present at the time of inspection with regard to theft of
electricity, is not necessary because of the very nature of the electricity as a
substance. The presence of the accused at the spot at the time of committing
the offence may be necessary such as the offence of pickpocketing, but for
the theft of electricity, fixation or use of certain devices may be sufficient to
continue the theft of electricity without the accused being personally present
there and electricity as a stolen material is consumed simultaneously and as
such its recovery is also not possible such as the case with jewellery, cash or
other chattels. Even otherwise, admittedly being a registered consumer, it
was his duty to check that the electric connection was used legally and
lawfully at his premises. In this regard, I could lay my hands on a judgment
passed by Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd & Anr., 138 (2007) DLT
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 21 of 23
22
679, wherein it has been held as under:
(para 7) "...Once the petitioner had obtained
connection in its own name, it was the
responsibility of the petitioner to see that the
electric connection is used legally and lawfully.
The respondent no.2 is merely a licensee of the
petitioner to sell petrol, as a dealer of the petitioner. The petitioner is the principal agent, who was selling petrol on the petrol pump and the petrol pump belongs to the petitioner. If adulterated petrol is sold or less petrol is sold to customers by tampering with pump meter or electricity is stolen, it is the responsibility of the petitioner and has a duty to do regular inspection & keep a check on the petrol pump. The petitioner cannot wash off its hands saying that it has nothing to do with the petrol pump once it gave license. The petitioner in its own petition has not stated if it had taken any action against respondent no.2 when it discovered theft of electricity to the extent that meter was found slow by more than 80%. That shows that the electricity was being stolen either with connivance of the petitioner or with consent of the petitioner".
37. In the light of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that accused have miserably failed to show a reasonable probability of their defence that the meter in question was not tampered and that they are not liable for any alleged theft. Hence, complainant has been successful in proving the case against both accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, accused Sanjay Khanna is held guilty and convicted for the offence U/sec 135 & 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and accused Kuldeep BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 22 of 23 23 Singh is held guilty and convicted for the offence U/sec 135 & 138 r/w section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The file be consigned to the record Digitally signed room.
NEELAM by NEELAM
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.07.30
12:52:16 +0530
Announced in the open ( NEELAM SINGH)
Court on 27.07.2018 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
BRPL VS. SANJAY KHANNA & ANR. CIS No.643228/16 Page no. 23 of 23