Delhi District Court
In The Case Of Vardhman Properties Ltd. vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 31 March, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI YASHWANT KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Complaint Case No.383/08
PS Kalkaji, New Delhi
U/s 135 & 138 r/w/sec. 151 of Electricity Act, 2003
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
having its registered office at
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi110019
Also at :
Corporate, Legal & Enforcement Cell
Near Andrews Ganj Market, Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi110049
Acting through Mr. Binay Kumar,
(Authorised Representative)
...Complainant
Versus
Kishan Lal Jaha (User/ RC)
New 265/4, Govind Puri,
New Delhi
...Accused
COMPLAINT INSTITUTION ON :23.04.2008
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30.03.2011
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 31.03.2011
JUDGEMENT
1 The complainant company filed the present complaint u/s 135 & 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). According to the complainant, the accused committed an offence punishable u/sec. 135 (1) of the Act and also to determine the civil liability as provided under the provisions of section 154 (5) of the Act.
2 Cognizance for offence was taken on a complaint filed by the complainant company BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. through its authorised officer.
23 The accused was summoned to face the complaint case u/sec. 135 & 138 of the Act by Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dt. 02.02.2009 after recording the presummoning evidence and hearing the arguments on summoning. Accused appeared and was granted bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of the like amount subject to the condition that the accused shall deposit 15% of the bill amount with the complainant within 03 months from 22.04.2009. Separate notice u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C was framed against the accused by this court to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 The complainant company examined Binay Kumar - Legal Officer & AR as PW1 & Sudip Bhattacharya, Assessing Officer as PW2. The statement of the accused was recorded u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating evidence against him. The accused wanted to lead evidence in defence, therefore, the accused was given an opportunity to lead evidence in defence. The accused, in his defence evidence, examined Jalaluddin S/o Mohd. Hanif, R/o H.No.739/7, Govindpuri, New Delhi as DW1. 5 I have heard the Ld. counsel for accused represented by Sh.D.K.Sharma and prosecution represented by Sh.Sunil Fernandes, counsel/ deemed P.P and have perused the entire records. 6 Undoubtedly, the offence involved in the present complaint case relates to the economic offence. Before considering the facts and circumstances of this complaint case, it has to be seen and considered 3 whether this court, being the special court under the Act, can take cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec. 135 of the Act. Section 151 of the Act reads as under:
''Cognizance of offences - No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorised by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose:
Provided that the court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Provided further that a special court constituted under section 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.'' In the case of Vardhman Properties Ltd. Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
157 (2009)DLT 636, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that:
''The special electricity court can take cognizance of the offence u/sec. 135 of the Act without awaiting committal of the case to it by the Magistrate. Therefore, in the instant case when by the order dt. 07.04.2006, the Ld.ASJ took cognizance of the offence and summoned the petitioner for offence u/sec. 135 of the Act, the Ld.ASJ was exercising the powers u/sec. 151 of the Act.'' The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 06.02.2009 passed in Crl. MC 2059/2008 & Crl. MA 7669/2008 entitled Dalbir Singh Vs BSES Rajdhani Power Limited held that :
''Section 154 (1) mandates that every offence punishable under sections 135 to 140 & section 150 shall be triable only by the Special Court within 4 whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. Considering the fact that Section 154 (3) the Special Courts are expected to proceed with the trial of the complaints under sections 135 to 140 & Section 150 in a summary way, it is inconceivable that the Parliament intended that the cognizance of the offence should first be taken by the learned MM and thereafter the case committed to the Special Court. Further Section 155 begins with the words ''Save as otherwise provided in this Act'' when it talks of the applicability of the Cr.PC. Therefore, on a collective reading of Section 135, 151, 154 (3) and 155 it is plain that as regards the trial of the complaint case under the Act, the intention of the Parliament is that it is the Special Court will take cognizance of the offences and proceed to try the case, to begin with, in a summary way.'
7 Further, it is to be considered whether the special electricity court is required to give reasons for proceeding with the trial in a summary way. Section 154 (3) reads as under :
''The Special Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1) of section 260 or section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), try the offence referred to in sections 135 to 140 and section 150 in a summary way in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the said code and the provisions of sections 263 to 265 of the said Code shall, so far as may be, apply to such trial :
Provided that where in the course of a summary trial under this sub section, it appears to the Special court that the nature of the case is such that it is undesirable to try such case in summary way, the Special Court shall recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to re hear the case in the manner provided by the provisions of the said code for the trial of such offence:
Provided further that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for a Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.'' In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case Dalbir Singh (Supra) further held that :5
''A plain reading of the above provision reveals that the intention of the Parliament was that cases concerning theft or illegal abstraction of electricity, attracting the offence under section 135 to 140 and section 150 of the Act, should be tried, to start with, in a summary way. Since the substantive portion of the above provision itself empowers the Special Court in this regard, it is unnecessary for the Special Court to give reasons for trying the case in a summary way. The procedure under section 154 (3) is indeed a departure from the procedure of trial of warrant cases under the Cr.PC Section 154 (3) contains a nonobstante clause which indicates that it is a departure from the normal procedure. Even Section 155 of the Act which otherwise makes the entire Cr.PC applicable, begins with the words ''save as otherwise provided in this Act.''
8 After taking cognizance of the offence on the complaint, the accused namely, Kishan Lal Jaha was summoned to face the present complaint case. Accused appeared and was granted bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety of the like amount. The notice u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the accused, however, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In this regard, I would refer the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) P. Ltd. Vs Sanjay ChaudharyI (2009) SLT 144, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that ''strong suspicion about commission of offence and involvement of accused is sufficient to frame charge.'' The statement of the accused was recorded u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. In this context, I would refer the judgment delivered in the case of Chander Dev Rai Vs State (NCT of Delhi) 156 (2009) DLT 229 (DB), it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that ''Examination of accused u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is not a mere formality. Answers given by him have practical utility for criminal courts. Apart from affording an opportunity to the accused to examine incriminating circumstances against him also help the court in appreciating the entire evidence adduced in the court during the trial.'' 6 9 Admittedly, the accused Kishan Lal Jaha is now facing trial and the complainant seeks to prove the complaint case through circumstances appearing against him. A criminal charge could be proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the requirement is that circumstances incriminating in nature must be proved by cogent evidence and then circumstances so proved must form the complete chain so as to be not consistent with the innocence of accused. In this context, a reliance can be had upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 1970 SC 1286 held that:
'' There is no predetermined way of proving any fact. The fact is said to have been proved where after considering the matter before it the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the specification that it exists.'' In the case of Kundan Lal Rallaram Vs Custodian Evacuee Property, Bombay AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1316, it was held that :
''...The evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e. oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by opposite party; it may comprise circumstantial evidence or presumptions of law or fact....'' In the case of M/s Sodhi Transport Co. and another Vs. State of U.P. and another reported as AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1099, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that :
''A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for party in whose favour it exists.''
10 Let us firstly examine whether the present complaint case has been filed by duly authorized representative on behalf of the complainant 7 company. Sh. Binay Kumar, Legal Officer being an authorized representative (hereinafter referred to as 'AR') of the complainant company filed the present complaint case. The AR entered into witness box and examined himself as PW1. PW1, during examination in chief, deposed that he is working with the complainant company i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. as Officer Legal. He has been authorised by the complainant to file and pursue the cases on behalf of the complainant company in the special court including the present case. He has been authorised to do so by letter of authority dt. 23.10.2006 by Sh. Lalit Jalan - Chief Executive Officer of the complainant company in the capacity of Manager U/sec. 2 (24) of the company's Act. The said letter of authority already exhibited by PW1 as Ex.CW1/2. PW1 also deposed that the present complaint which bears his signature at point A already exhibited as Ex.CW1/1. PW1 further deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the facts of the case and has deposed as per record provided to him by the complainant company. During cross examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that he has filed the false and fabricated case against the accused. Sh. Lalit Jalan, Chief Executive Officer of the complainant company was having the powers on behalf of the complainant company to authorise him for filing and pursuing this case for the complainant company. PW1 does not have any personal knowledge of the present complaint case. Perusal of Ex.CW1/2 dated 23.10.2006 reveals that Sh.Lalit Jalan, Manager u/sec. 2 (24) of the Companies Act, 1956 and Chief Executive Officer of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. authorised Binay Kumar, legal officer to institute and/or defend legal proceedings of whatsoever nature before the Special Courts and to sign & verify plaints, affidavits, written statements, petitions of claims, objections, memorandum 8 of appeal & petition and application of all kinds and to file them in any such courts or office apart from other authorisation as mentioned in the said document Ex.CW1/2. The complainant is rendering services for distribution of electricity to the public and all the complaint cases by the company are being filed through the authorised representatives on its behalf. PW1 not only proved the authority letter Ex.CW1/2 in his favour but also the complaint filed by him Ex.CW1/1. Whereas, the accused has not led any evidence and failed to prove that the AR has not been authorised by the complainant company to file the present complaint case. Thus, I hold that Sh.Binay Kumar, AR of the complainant company is duly authorised and competent person to file and represent the present complaint case on behalf of the complainant company.
11 Now, let us secondly examine whether members of the inspection team were the authorised officers of the complainant company to carry out inspection at the premises in question. Sh. Sudip Bhattacharya - Assessing officer examined himself as PW2. No material witness who inspected the premises in question has been produced or examined. Copy of the notification No.F11(93)/2003/ power/1566 dt. 17.05.2005 filed by the complainant reveals that in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) read with Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification No. F.No.U11030/2/2003/UTL dt. 20.02.2004, the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi has authorised the technical officers, not below the rank of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Manager and above, in the departments dealing with distribution (District/ Zones) commercial and enforcement functions in 9 BSES Yamuna Power Limited, BSES Rajdhani Power Limited and North Delhi Power Limited who shall be designated 'Authorised Officers' for the purpose of clause (a) of sub section (2) of Section (2) of section 135 of the said Act in respective areas of the said companies in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. In view of the above notification and foregoing discussions, I hold that in the absence of any material witness i.e. the team members, the premises in question was not inspected by the authorised officer on 21.04.2007.
12 The issue involved in the present criminal complaint case is on the point of detection of theft of electricity which is the crucial aspect. Let us finally examine whether the accused Kishan Lal Jaha has committed the offence u/sec. 135 & 138 of the Act. It is well settled principle that prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant through its witnesses has tried to prove the case against the accused that the accused was committing direct theft of electricity at the premises in question. This case is on the point of detection of dishonest abstraction of electricity(DAE)and how inference to be drawn for DAE. Regulation 2 (i) and 2 (m) of the Regulations define "direct theft"
and "dishonest abstraction of energy" which are as under :
"2(i) 'Direct theft' shall mean abstraction of electrical energy either through by passing the meter by some arrangement external to it or through unauthorized tapping of the supply from licensee's distribution network."
"2 (m) 'Dishonest Abstraction of Energy (DAE)' 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 10 conclusion that the meter has been caused to record less energy than actually passing through it. It shall also include any other means adopted by consumer to cause the meter to stop or run slow (such as reversing the polarity of one phase of poly phase meters, changes in CT or PT, etc. ). In this contest, a reliance can be had upon the judgement in WP (C) No.17063/2006 and CM No.14064/2006 decided on 17.11.2006 = 2006(135) DLT 198 entitled Harvinder Motors Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that mere irregularity in meter seals, breakage of glass etc. do not authorize license to show cause notice. Assessing officer to observe consumption pattern before granting personal hearing. In the WP(C) No.2291/2005 decided on 24.04.2007 reported as J.K. Steelomelt(P) Ltd. Vs. Rajdhani Power Ltd. 2007(140) DLT 563, it was held that fact that upper side and lower side were found missing in inspection does not lead to an inference of DAE since obviously no abnormality found in consumption pattern or any evidence of tempering with the internal mechanism of the meter. It was further held that in order to establish DAE through conclusive evidence, it is incumbent on the respondent to show, not merely with the reference to the consumption pattern, but by some other tangible evidence that there has been the tempering with or access by the petitioner to the internal mechanism of the meter in manner that would slow down the consumption. This could be, for instance, in the form of an accu check instrument being used to detect if the meter was recording lesser consumption than it should. It was further held that merely because, the connected load is more than the sanctioned load, can not lead to an automatic presumption that the entire connected load is being used by the consumer throughout the period. It was also held that apart from the fact that the two seals were found missing there is no tangible evidence in the 11 instant case to show that there has been a tempering with the internal mechanism of the meter by the consumer to make the meter recording lesser consumption of electricity. No accu check instrument has been employed to detect if the meter was recording lesser units. Fact that the disc was moving in the right direction, in the absence of any accu check instrument being used, should have actually led the respondent to conclude that the case of DAE had not been established. In the case of Jagannath Singh Vs. B.S. Ramaswamy (1966)1 SCR 885, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a meter with an exposed stud hole, without more, is not a perfected instrument for unauthorized taking of energy, and can not be regarded as an artificial means of its abstraction. To make it such an artificial means, the tempering must go further, and the meter must be converted into an instrument for recording less than the units actually passing through it. A check meter affords an easy methods of proving that the consumer's meter is recording less than the units consumed and is being used as an artificial means for abstraction of the unrecorded energy. Applying the above test, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held in the case of J.K. Steelomelt (Supra) that an automatic presumption of DAE on the basis of the external symptoms of tempering together with the analyses of the consumption pattern would not be a safe and error free method. Some other tangible evidence must be shown to exist. In the WP (C) 18328/2004 and CMs 13865/04, 914/06, 4123/06 decided on 21.05.2007 entitled Bhasin Motors (I) P. Ltd. Vs. N.D.P.L., it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that an automatic presumption of DAE on the basis of the external symptoms of tempering together with the analyses of the consumption pattern would not be a safe and error free method. Some other tangible 12 evidence must be shown to exist. An accu check meter can be deployed to find out if the meter is infact recording lesser units. It was further held that inspection report could at best have only led to an suspicion of DAE which was thereafter required to be established through conclusive evidence. In Udham Singh Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 2007(136) DLT 500, it was held that mere existence of an irregular seal could not have led to a conclusive proof of tempering. In Jagdish Narayan (Smt.) Vs. North Delhi Power Limited 2007(140) DLT 307, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that no indication from inspection report for using any device or film or a shunt to slow down the meter no accu check operatus was used to determine if the meter was in fact recording lesser energy than it should. No photographs of the condition of the meter at the time of inspection have been shown although that by itself could not constitute proof. Penalty formula used by respondent itself can not supply proof of DAE. Application of LDHF formula also not constitute "conclusive proof" of DAE. Denial of show cause notice and refusal to accept inspection report by the petitionersmeter not installed in temper proof condition and outside reach of any mischievous third party. In such circumstance not reasonable to draw inference of DAE merely on discovery of some signs of tempering. It was also held that an inference of DAE should not be permitted to be drawn on the mere fact that a meter had been found with broken seals. No case of DAE was made out in the aforesaid case.
13 In the present case, PW2 in his examination in chief deposed that he is working with the complainant company i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. as Assessing Officer and he has passed the speaking order dt. 23.05.2007 in the 13 present case. As per records, meter No. 22069694 installed against the connection in the name of Kishan Lal Jawa at the address 265/4 Govind Puri, Alaknanda was replaced by meter management group on 26.02.2007. The meter was sent to the laboratory under intimation to the consumer. The meter was tested by the laboratory on 14.03.2007. when it was found that the hologram seal of the meter is tempered and EL and REV LED were found cut. Meter display was faulty. The meter was declared as tampered. The site was inspected by authorised inspection team on 21.04.2007 when a connected load of 2.499 KW for nondomestic purpose was found at site. Since the meter was declared tampered by the laboratory inspection team served show cause notice on the same date i.e. 21.04.2007 asking the consumer to file reply by 28.04.2007 and attend personal hearing on 07.05.2007. Sh. Jalaluddin who presented himself as tenant and user of the connection attended personal hearing on 09.05.2007. He stated during the hearing that the meter in question got burnt and the complaint was lodged. He stated that his main business is making sugarcane juice and hence the consumption may be low during the winter months. PW2 further deposed that he have carefully analysed the facts of the case and also checked the consumption pattern as per provisions of DERC Regulations. The recorded consumption was found only 25 % of the assessed consumption since the meter was declared tampered by the laboratory and the consumption was found low as per norms. He passed the order dated 23.05.2007 establishing as a case of dishonest Abstraction of Energy/ theft of electricity. The speaking order is already exhibited as Ex.CW2/8 which bears his signature at point A. 14 14 The accused stated at the time of framing of notice u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. that he was not found tampering the electric meter No.22069694 and thus not committed theft to the extent of connected load of 2.499 KW for commercial purpose and also not cause loss and damage to the extent of Rs. 91,119/ to the complainant. At the time of statement u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he is the owner of the premises in question which has been rented out to the tenants. He was neither present nor the user of the premises in question on 21.04.2007, therefore, he has no knowledge if the officers of the complainant company namely Amit Kumar Garg - AM Enforcement, Amit Sharma - Trainee Engineer and Pradeep Saini GET visited and inspected the premises in question on 21.04.2007. The accused further stated that he has never tampered with the meter bearing No.22069694. He was regularly paying the bills against the electricity consumed through the meter installed at the premises in question. When the meter burnt, a complaint was lodged with the complainant in this regard which was removed and new meter was installed by the complainant. False and fabricated load report has been prepared against him. Therefore, he does not have any knowledge about the reports, visual footage and show cause notice prepared at site. According to the accused, he is innocent person and he is old and aged person of 67 years. The burnt meter was having the no.22108565 and the meter which has been shown by the complainant as the tampered meter does not pertain to him since it is having a different number i.e. No.22069694 which is in the name of some Dr.Sunil Kapoor R/o B108, Ground Floor side, FKalkaji, New Delhi. The accused, in his defence evidence, examined one witness Jalaluddin S/o Mohd. Hanif as DW1. DW1 deposed in his examination in chief that he is 15 running the shop of fruit juice as a tenant at 265/4, Govindpuri, New Delhi for the last 15 years. Kishan Lal Jawa is the owner of his shop. He regularly paid the electricity bill of the said shop. On 23.02.2007, the meter of the said shop burnt and DW1 called to Kishan Lal Jawa for complaining to the BSES and complained on the same day. New meter was installed on 26.02.2007 and after that DW1 regularly paid the electricity bill for the same connection. After about two months, DW1 get a notice from BSES. When, they read the said notice, they came to know that this notice does not pertain to their meter bearing No.22108565. After that, Kishan Lal Jawa went to the office of BSES and gave an application for alleged notice sent by BSES regarding meter bearing No.22069694. But the officials of the BSES does not pay heed upon the said application and book a false case against Kishan Lal Jawa.
15 During cross examination, PW2 admitted that the meter number shown in Ex.PW2/1 contains the No.22108565. PW2 further admitted that the meter number shown in the bill Ex.PW2/2 contain the meter no. 22108565. Perusal of Ex.PW2/1 & Ex.PW2/2 reveals that the said electricity bills for the months of June, 2006 & Feb., 2007 issued in the name of Sh.Kishan Lal Jaha, New 265/4, Old 46, A1, Gali No.4, Govindpuri, New Delhi pertaining to the meter No.22108565 and CRN No.2510064994. PW2 admitted that on 26.02.2007 at the time of replacement, he was not accompanied with the meter management staff for replacement of burnt meter. PW2 further admitted that the inspection report, assessment of connected load and show cause notice Ex.PW2/4, Ex.PW2/5 & Ex.PW2/7 have not been prepared by him. PW2 also admitted that he has not visited 16 anytime to the site of accused. The photocopy of the bill for the month of November, 2007 shown to PW2 by the accused counsel. PW2 admitted that the name of the registered consumer is shown as Dr.Sunil Kapoor R/o B108, Ground Floor site, F Kalkaji, New Delhi. PW2 further admitted that the meter No.22069694 is mentioned in the said document which was marked as markA. PW2 also admitted that all the documents filed along with the complaint case do not appear the meter no.22108565. PW2 deposed that he can not say that the meter bearing No.22108565 was tested in the laboratory. According to the complaint, the meter bearing No. 22069694 was sent to the laboratory in the sealed condition for further testing/ analysis under intimation to the accused that he may witness the testing/ analysis of the meter in laboratory. Whereas, the different meter No.22108565 was installed at the premises in question and the details of the said meter reveals from the electricity bills placed on record Ex.PW2/1 & Ex.PW2/2. The meter bearing No.22069694 was in the name of Dr.Sunil Kapoor at the address B108, G/F site, F Kalkaji, New Delhi19 which reveals from the electricity bill for the month of November, 2007 placed on record as markA. According to the accused, the burnt meter was having the No. 22108565 which was removed by the officials of the complainant, therefore, the said meter bearing No.22108565 was pertaining to the premises in question and the said meter was never tested in the lab and the meter bearing No.22069694 which was tested in the lab was having no concern with the premises in question. The complainant has neither produced nor examined any witness who had tested the meter in the laboratory and also inspected the premises in question on 21.04.2007. The aforesaid persons could have been the material witnesses to prove the case of tempering of 17 the meter against the accused which the complainant has failed to do so, reasons are best known to the complainant. The testimony of DW1 also supports the case of the accused that the notice with regard to the meter bearing No.22069694 does not pertain to the premises in question. Meaning thereby, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the accused was having concern with the meter bearing No.22069694 and tempering with the meter in question and dishonestly abstracting the electricity through the meter. The speaking order dt. 23.05.2007 Ex.CW2/8 is also not sustainable and the same is set aside.
16 In view of the aforesaid judgments & the foregoing reasons discussed above in details, the circumstances and evidence proved by the complainant company, to my considered opinion, do not establish the involvement of the accused in the offence of dishonest abstraction of energy U/sec. 135 (1) & Section 138 of the Act. The complainant has not proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The present complaint case against the accused is not squarely covered within the provisions of section 135 (1) & 138 of the Act. Thus, I acquit the accused namely Kishan Lal Jaha (Kishan Lal Jawa) U/sec. 135 (1) & 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Announced in the open ( YASHWANT KUMAR )
court on 31.03.2011 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
18
CC No. 383/08
31.03.2011
Present AR for the complainant
Sh. D.K.Sharma, counsel for the accused with
accused in person
Vide separate judgment of the day, the accused is acquitted u/sec. 135 (1) & 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Surety discharged. The amount, if any already deposited with the complainant by the accused shall be returned to him within one month from today.
The copies of the judgment be made available to the complainant and the accused immediately. File be consigned to record room.
( YASHWANT KUMAR ) ASJ/SPL.COURT(ELECT.)SOUTH 31.03.2011