Delhi District Court
State vs Nirmal Kaur on 1 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (Electricity), EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No.697/2021
FIR No.18/2021
U/s 135/138/150 of Electricity Act
PS Vivek Vihar
State versus Nirmal Kaur
W/o Sh. Surgya Soman Singh
R/o 28/111, First Floor,
Kasturba Nagar, Vivek Vihar, Delhi
Date of institution 13.12.2021
Arguments heard 01.10.2022
Date of judgment 01.10.2022
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the prosecution case:-
1. The BSES Yamuna Power Limited (hereinafter referred as complainant company/BSES) through its Assistant Manager Sh. P.S. Paul, lodged a complaint U/s 135//138/150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the SHO, PS Vivek Vihar for registration of FIR against the accused persons namely Nirmal Kaur (registered consumer) and accused Ranjeet Singh (user) U/s 135/150 of the Act.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that on 16.12.2020, at about 8.25 am, an inspection was carried out by the joint inspection team of the complainant company at the premises of the accused persons situated at 28/111, First Floor, Kasturba Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. The inspection team was comprised of Sh. P.S. Paul (Assistant Manager), FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 1 of 17 Mohd. Javed (DET) and Sh. Vijay Pal Singh (lineman). At the time of inspection, one meter bearing no.35060142 reading NV was found installed at site but the said meter was found in idle condition and user was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through two Black colour PVC illegal aluminium wires which were joined with the Distribution Box of Pole No.D416. Total connected load was found to the tune of 4.070 KW which was being used for domestic purpose. Necessary videography of illegal tapping and connected load was recorded by the videographer Sh.
Anil. The said meter and illegal tapping material were were removed by the lineman and seized at the spot. The inspection report, load report, seizure memo and advisory notice were prepared at the spot and same were tendered to the accused/user but he refused to sign and accept the same. Public persons were requested to join the investigation but none agreed. It is averred that accused Nirmal Kaur is the registered consumer and accused Ranjeet Singh is the user of the electricity. The acts of the accused Nirmal Kaur fall within the provisions of section 135/138/150 of the Act and the acts of accused Ranjeet Singh falls within the provisions of section 135/138 of the Act. Thus, a prayer was made in the complaint to register an FIR against the accused persons U/s 135/138/150 of the Act.
3. The SHO marked the said complaint (Ex.PW1/6) to HC Dayal Kumar. On 13.01.2021, HC Dayal Kumar made endorsement on the complaint and gave the complaint to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. The Duty Officer registered the FIR No.18/2021 against the accused persons U/s 135/138/150 of the Act and marked the investigation of the case to HC Dayal. Thereafter, HC Dayal Kumar was transferred and FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 2 of 17 investigation of the case was marked to HC Vipin Kumar, the IO of the case on 04.03.2021 for investigation. On 13.05.2021, he visited the inspected premises, served the accused Nirmal Kaur with the notice U/s 41.1A Cr.P.C. Accused Nirmal Kaur joined the investigation. IO interrogated her and prepared interrogation report. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Nirmal Kaur is the registered consumer as well as owner of the inspected premises and accused Ranjeet Singh was her tenant in the inspected premises. Accused Ranjeet Singh is stated to have left the inspected premises and despite efforts, he could not be traced. IO bound down the accused Nirmal Kaur vide Pabandinama. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused Nirmal Kaur U/s 135/150 of the Act.
4. On 21.04.2022, a notice for the commission of offence U/s 135 r/w section 150 of the Act was given to the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses.
6. PW1 Sh. P.S. Paul is the Manager of the complainant company. This witness deposed that on 16.12.2020, at about 8.25 a.m., an inspection was conducted by the enforcement team of BSES YPL comprising of himself, Mohd. Javed (DET), Sh Vijay Pal Singh (lineman) and Sh. Anil (Videographer) at the premises of accused persons i.e.H.No.28/111, 1 st floor, Kasturba Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. At the time of inspection, one single phase electronic meter no.35060143 was found installed at the FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 3 of 17 premises of accused in the name of accused Nirmal Kaur and accused Ranjeet Singh was found to be the user of electricity. The said meter was found in idle condition and the accused persons were found indulged in direct theft of electricity at 1st floor through Black colour illegal wires which were found joined with the distribution box of BSES YPL installed at pole No.D-416. The total connected load was found to the tune of 4.070 KW which was being used for domestic purpose at the first floor and the same was running directly through illegal wires. PW1 further deposed that during inspection, accused Ranjeet (untraced) was present at the spot and necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was done by the videographer Sh. Anil. The CD containing videography of the inspection proceedings has been brought on record as Ex.PW1/1. During evidence, the CD was played on the laptop and PW1 identified the video which was recorded by the videographer during inspection. PW1 also identified the accused Ranjeet Singh in the said video. The inspection report Ex.PW1/2 and the load report Ex.PW1/3 were prepared at the spot. The illegal wires were removed by lineman Sh. Vijay Pal Singh and seized at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/4. He also issued an advisory notice (Ex.PW1/5) to the accused. Entire set of documents was prepared in presence of accused Ranjeet Singh and the same were tendered to him for signature but he refused to sign and accept the same. Thereafter, on 31.12.2020, he lodged a complaint (Ex.PW1/6) to the SHO, PS Vivek Vihar for registration of an FIR against the accused persons.
7. PW2 Mohd. Javed is the Diploma Trainee Engineer (DET). This witness was also one of the members of the inspection team and he has FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 4 of 17 corroborated the testimony of PW1 and deposed on the similar lines of the testimony of PW1.
8. PW3 Sh. Anil is the Videographer. This witness deposed that on 16.12.2020, at about 8.25 am, an inspection was conducted at the premises of accused and during inspection, on the instructions of team leader Sh. P.S. Paul (Manager), he did videography of inspection proceedings. During evidence, the CD (Ex.PW1/1) was played and he has identified the video which was recorded by him at the time of inspection.
9. PW4 HC Vipin Kumar is the IO of the case. This witness deposed that previously, the complaint (Ex.PW4/1) given to HC Dayal Singh for investigation. On 13.01.2021, the said complaint was given to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. On the said complaint, FIR no.18/2021 was registered on the said day. The copy of FIR has been brought on record as Ex.PW4/1. Thereafter, HC Dayal Singh was transferred and the present matter was assigned to him on 04.03.2021 for investigation. On 13.05.2021, he visited the premises of accused and served a notice u/s 41.1(A) Cr.P.C (Ex.PW4/2) upon the accused Nirmal Kaur. On the same day, accused joined the investigation. He interrogated the accused and prepared interrogation report Ex.PW4/3. During investigation, accused Nirmal Kaur produced copy of her election card which has been brought on record as Mark A. PW4 also deposed that during investigation, it was revealed that accused Nirmal kaur is the owner and registered consumer of the meter installed at the time of inspection and accused Ranjeet Singh was her tenant and the said Ranjeet Singh has already left the premises and his whereabouts are not available. Thereafter, FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 5 of 17 he bound down the accused vide Pabandinama Ex.PW4/4. PW4 further deposed that on 02.06.2021, he served a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW4/5) upon the complainant for production of the case property. On the same day, he also served notices u/s 160 of Cr.P.C (Ex.PW4/6) upon the members of inspection team. On 10.06.2021, complainant produced the case property which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/7. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet.
10. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused admitted that an inspection was carried out at her aforesaid premises. He also admitted that meter no.35060143 was installed in her name. She has also not disputed that inspected property belongs to her and co-accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was her tenant in the inspected premises at the relevant time. She also admitted that at the time of inspection, co-accused Ranjeet Singh was present at the spot at the time of inspection and necessary videography was done by the videographer. Accused has also not disputed the fact that aforesaid meter alongwith illegal wires was removed by the lineman. Accused denied the allegations of electricity theft. However, accused stated that she has settled the matter with the complainant company and he has also made the payment and an NOC has been issued. Accused did not lead any evidence to their evidence.
11. 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, one electricity meter No.35060143 was found installed at the inspected premises in the name of FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 6 of 17 accused Nirmal Kaur. It is also submitted that inspected premises belongs to accused accused Nirmal Kaur and during relevant time, user/tenant/co- accused Ranjeet Singh was residing at the inspected premises and thus, accused Nirmal Kaur being registered consumer as well as landlord of the inspected premises let the user/co-accused Ranjeet Singh commit direct theft of electricity. It is also submitted that at the time of inspection, aforesaid meter was lying in idle condition and Ranjeet Singh was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. It is further argued that the complainant company has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
12. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, argued that accused is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused has 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 by the complainant company.
13. Before proceeding further and before dealing with the factual aspects of the present case, it is deemed appropriate to to firstly specify and discuss the relevant provisions of the Act which are required to be gone into for appropriate disposal of the case. The present case pertains to sections 135 as well as 150 of Electricity Act. The provisions of section 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 FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 7 of 17 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 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 FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 8 of 17 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 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.
14. There is a presumption mentioned in the third proviso of Section FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 9 of 17 135 (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".
15. As per prosecution case, at the time of inspection, one electricity meter No.35060143 was found installed at the inspected premises in the name of accused Nirmal Kaur and and user/accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was found to be user. At the time of inspection, accused Ranjeet Singh was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. Accused Nirmal Kaur being registered consumer as well as landlord, let the user/accused Ranjeet Singh commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, the onus was on the prosecution to prove these allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
16. PW1 Sh. P.S. Pal (Sr. Manager), PW2 Mohd. Javed (DET), PW3 Sh. Anil (Lineman) (videographer) are the material witnesses in this case. PW1, PW2 and PW3 have corroborated the allegations made in the complaint (Ex.PW1/6) and their testimony is in conformity with the documents i.e. inspection report (Ex.PW1/2), load report (Ex.PW1/3), seizure memo (Ex.PW1/4) and advisory notice (Ex.PW1/5). They have has also identified the accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) in the video contained in the CD (Ex.PW1/1). PW3 Sh. Anil (videographer) has identified the video of the inspection proceedings contained in the CD (Ex.PW1/1).
17. PW4 IO Vipin Kumar deposed that during investigation, it was revealed that inspected premises belongs to accused Nirmal Kaur and FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 10 of 17 accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was user as well as a tenant of accused Nirmal Kaur in the inspected premises. It was further revealed that aforesaid electricity meter was installed in the name of accused Nirmal Kaur. All these facts have not been disputed by the accused persons in the cross-examination of PW4.
18. It is clear from the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 that on 16.12.2020, at about 8.25 am, an inspection was carried out at the premises of accused by the inspecting team members/officials of complainant company and at the time of inspection, aforesaid electricity meter was found installed in the name of accused Nirmal Kaur and this fact has not been disputed by the accused in the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2. It is further clear from the testimony of PW4/IO as well as statement of accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C that the inspected premises belongs to accused Nirmal Kaur and accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was user as well as tenant of accused Nirmal Kaur in the inspected premises. It is further clear from the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as video contained in the CD Ex.PW1/1 that the user/accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. Accused has not disputed the fact that at the time of inspection, meter was in idle condition. Inspection proceedings were recorded by videographer and CD containing videography of the said inspection proceedings was brought on record as Ex.PW1/1. It is also clear from the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 that the meter no.35060143 and illegal wires were removed by the lineman and this fact has not been disputed by the accused persons in the cross-examination of these witnesses as well as in the their FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 11 of 17 statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Nirmal Kaur also admitted that accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was present at the spot at the time of inspection and necessary videography was done by the videographer. Perusal of cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 show that though, the accused endevaoured to dispute the factum of inspection, preparation of inspection documents, seizure memo and videography of the inspection proceedings, however, he has not specifically disputed the factum of preparation of the relevant documents, the contents and authenticity of the inspection report and CD containing videography of the inspection proceedings. Accused has not specifically disputed the genuineness of assessment of load assessed by the complainant as specified in the load report Ex.PW1/3. During evidence, PW1 and PW2 identified the video recorded by videographer as well as user/tenant Ranjeet Singh (untrace) in the said video. Accused has also not disputed the identity of the inspected premises depicted in the video contained in the CD Ex.PW1/1. In her statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused has also admitted that inspected premises belongs to her and accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was residing as a tenant in the inspected premises. The videography of the inspection proceedings was recorded by videographer and accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) has been identified by PW1 and PW2 in the video contained in the CD (Ex.PW1/1) during their evidence and accused has neither disputed the identity of the accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) nor disputed the contents of the video. Thus, inspection, presence of accused/user well as videography of the inspection proceedings conducted by the videographer stand proved.
19. In their statements, PW1 and PW2 has clearly deposed that meter FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 12 of 17 no.35066143 was lying installed in the name of accused Nirmal Kaur and accused/user Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was the tenant and the said meter was lying in idle condition at the time of inspection and accused/user was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires which were joined with the Distribution Box of BSES YPL installed at pole no.D-416. It is also clear from the statement of PW5 as well as statement of accused recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C that the inspected premises belongs to accused Nirmal Kaur and at the time of inspection, accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was residing in the inspected premises as a tenant. Thus, in view of settled provision of section 150 of the Act, accused Nirmal Kaur being the landlord as well as registered consumer is liable for abetment of the offence of direct theft of electricity as they let the user/accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) commit direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. Accused endevaoured to deny the fact that the accused/user was not indulged in any type of theft of electricity, however, it is clear that during evidence before the court, CD (Ex.PW1/1) containing video clip of inspection proceedings was played before the court which depicted the manner in which user/accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires.
20. As per testimony of PW4 as well as statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, inspected premises belongs to accused Nirmal Kaur and thus, it was her duty to ensure that no illegal activity is carried out in his premises. It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the user/accused Ranjeet Singh was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. It is not the case of the accused Nirmal Kaur that she FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 13 of 17 was not aware about the factum of direct theft of electricity being committed by the accused Ranjeet Singh. Accused Nirmal Kaur has not specifically denied the factum of direct theft of electricity committed by the accused Ranjeet Singh. It is clear from his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, that accused has settled the matter qua theft bill with the complainant company and she has already paid the settlement amount and an NOC has also been obtained by them. In case, accused Nirmal Kaur was unaware that co-accused Ranjeet Singh has committed direct theft of electricity then he ought to have brought this fact to the notice of the complainant and he ought to have disassociated herself from the said illegal activity of her tenant/accused Ranjeet Singh. However, it is clear that accused Nirmal Kaur did not take any action in this regard against the co-accused Ranjeet Singh and her aforesaid conduct speaks for itself that she was well aware of the illegal act of the co-accused Ranjeet Singh. Thus, under these facts and circumstances, it can be very well said that once the accused Nirmal Kaur had come to know about the said illegal activity of the co-accused, she ought to have taken appropriate action against the co-accused Ranjeet Singh and she was also duty bound to inform the complainant company about the same, however, she did not do the needful though, she was well aware that co-accused/user Ranjeet Singh is indulged in direct theft of electricity. Being registered consumer, accused Nirmal Kaur has also remained silent and she did not take any action against the user/accused Ranjeet Singh which indicates that she was also well aware that user/accused Ranjeet Singh was indulged in direct theft of electricity. Thus, under these circumstances, it can be very well FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 14 of 17 said that accused Nirmal Kaur has abetted the offence of direct theft of electricity and therefore, she is liable U/s 150 of the Act.
21. 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 persons that the user/co-accused Ranjeet Singh who was residing in the inspected premises as a tenant, was indulged in direct theft of electricity, in connivance with accused Nirmal Kaur and therefore, in view of the third proviso of section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act 2003, it is to be presumed that co-accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was indulged in direct theft of electricity, in connivance with accused Nirmal Kaur, if she is unable to rebut the statutory presumption.
22. 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'."
23. In view of the settled law, now it is to be seen if the accused FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 15 of 17 persons have taken any defence to rebut the statutory presumption. Accused has simply stated in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She stated that she has already settled the dispute and settlement amount has already been paid by her and an NOC has also been issued. Accused did not lead any evidence to her defence. If the co-accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) did not indulge in direct theft of electricity or that he was using the electricity through any legal means, then the accused was liable to rebut the statutory presumption by disproving the allegations made in the complaint by leading relevant defence evidence. It is admitted position of fact that at the relevant time, inspected premises belonged to accused Nirmal Kaur and she was the registered consumer also and co-accused Ranjeet Singh was the user as well as a tenant in the inspected premises. It is clear from the evidence led by prosecution that at the time of inspection, co-accused Ranjeet Singh indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. Accused has not brought any material on record or lead any evidence to disprove all these allegations. Thus, it is held that accused has 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 FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 16 of 17 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".
24. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the co-accused Ranjeet Singh (untraced) was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. It is also proved on record that inspected premises belongs to accused Nirmal Kaur and she had let out the inspected premises to co-accused/user Ranjeet Singh who was indulged in direct theft of electricity trough illegal wires. Accused Nirmal Kaur being the registered consumer as well as owner of the inspected premises let the co-accused Rajeet Singh commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, accused Nirmal Kaur is guilty of abetment of offence of direct theft of electricity. Accordingly, Nirmal Kaur is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 135 r/w section 150 of the Electricity Act 2003. Appropriate proceedings as per law be initiated by the IO/SHO concerned as and when accused Ranjeet Singh is apprehended or arrested. Meanwhile file be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed by SHELLY SHELLY ARORA ARORA Date:
2022.10.01 16:40:58 -0400 (Shelly Arora) Addl. Sessions Judge (Electricity) East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Announced in open court on 01.10.2022 FIR No.18/2021 State vs Nirmal Kaur 17 of 17