Delhi District Court
Brpl vs . Preeti Chawla & Anr. Cc No. 323072/16 ... on 18 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT ,
(ELECTRICITY), CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
CC No. 1521/13
New case No. 323072/16
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.,
Having its Registered office at:
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi110019
Also at:
Corporate, Legal and Enforcement Cell,
Near Andrew Ganj Market,
New Delhi110049
Acting through Mr. Binay Kumar,
Authorized Officer ..........................Complainant
Verses
1. Preeti Chawla (User)
W/o Ramandeep Singh Chawla
WZ38, First Floor, Gali No. 10,
Krishna Puri,
New Delhi110018
2. Ramandeep Singh Chawla (User/Owner)
S/o late S. Satwant Singh Chawla
WZ38, First Floor, Gali No. 10,
Krishna Puri,
New Delhi110018. ..........accused persons
BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 1
Date of Institution : 18.12.2013
Date of Judgment : 18.09.2019
Final Order : Both accused persons acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1). The complainant company i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (in short BRPL) has filed the present complaint case under Section 135, 150 & Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') against the accused persons praying that accused persons be summoned, tried and punished as per law and for determining the civil liability of the accused persons.
2). The brief facts in narrow compass, relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present case are that present complaint has been filed by the complainant company acting through the Authorized OfficerSh. Binay Kumar who is authorized by Chief Executive Officer vide the Authority Letter BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 2 dated 23.10.2006. It is also stated that as per the Direction of DGM (Enf.), an inspection was carried out by the inspection team of the complainant company on 09.10.2013 at around 1.20 P.M. at the premises bearing No. WZ38, First Floor, Gali No. 10, Krishna Puri, New Delhi110018 (hereinafter referred as subject premises). The inspection team comprised of Mohd. Faisal Asst. Manager, Sh. Amit KumarTech and Sh. Deepak Sr., Videographer. It is also stated that the accused no. 1 and 2 were the user of the electricity supplied at the subject premises and during inspection, following observations were made: (a) No electronic meter was found installed at the site, (b) consumer was found indulged in direct theft of electricity directly from BSES service cable with the help of illegal wires (c) Connected load of the subject premises was found to be 9.225 KW/DX/DT at the site (d) Evidence material was seized by the Joint Inspection Team at the site.
It is also stated that the inspection team prepared Inspection Report including meter detail report, Load Report and BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 3 Seizure Memo at the site. It is also stated that necessary videography showing the irregularities was taken by videographer Sh. Deepak Sr. of M/s Arora Photo Studio.
It is further stated that the accused was using electricity illegally, by drawing the same dishonestly, from the complainant's system. Consequently, an amount of Rs. 1,57,784/ is payable to the complainant by the accused for wrongful abstraction, consumption, theft and use of electricity but the accused failed to pay the same. In given fact and circumstances of the case, present complaint case has been filed.
3). The complainant company led the pre summoning evidence. Vide order dt. 19.02.2019, accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the offence alleged against them.
4). It is also relevant to pen down here that vide order dated 06.08.2019, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. had been served upon against BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 4 both the accused persons for the offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In this case, the complainant company has examined three witnesses so as to prove its case namely PW1Rajesh Arora, PW02Mohd. Faisal and PW03Sh. Amit Kumar.
6. PW1Sh. Rajesh Arora testified that he was authorized representative of the complainant company duly authorized by the General Power of Attorney executed on 10.01.2018 by the CEO namely Sh. Amal Sinha duly notorized with serial No. 251/18, photocopy of the same which was selfattested was already Ex. CW1/2. Present complaint already EX. CW1/1 had been filed by Sh. Binay Kumar which bore his signature at point A. He also stated that he identified the signature of Binay Kumar as he had seen him signing and writing during the course of his employment with the complainant company. Photocopy of the authority letter dated 23.10.2006 issued in favour of Binay Kumar by the complainant company was already MarkX. The complaint was true and BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 5 correct.
07. PW2Sh. Mohd. Faisal testified that inspection was conducted at WZ38, First Floor, Gali No. 10, Krishna Puri, New Delhi on 09.10.2013 around 1.00 P.M. No meter was found during inspection and supply was running direct by tapping from bus bar using illegal wires which were two copper multistand wires of size 4 mm sq and length around 2 ft. The user was Preeti Chawla W/o Ramandeep Chawla. The raiding team comprised of Sh. Amit KumarTechnician and Deepak KumarVideographer from M/s Arora Photo Studio. Connected load found at the time of inspection was around 9 KW. All the illegal wires were seized. Reports were prepared at site.
08. PW3Shri Amit Kumar testified that on 09.10.2013 at 1.20 P.M., he alongwith other team members namely Mohd. Faizal, Deepak-Photographer, Engineer and himself visited the premises bearing No. WZ-38, Gali No. 10, Krishna Puri, Delhi-110018. There was no meter at the first floor of the subject premises and there was theft of electricity with the help of black colour wire. Accused-Preeti BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 6 Chawla and her husband Ramandeep Singh was present at the subject premises. They booked a case of Direct theft. They prepared a report. The connected load was found about 9.00 KW. They offered the report to the consumer-Preeti Chawla but she refused to accept the same. They removed the connected wire to the possible extent i.e. about 2 feets and took it as evidence.
At that stage, witness submitted that both persons present with Sh. Vinod Prakash Sharma that day in the Court were the persons who were present at the subject premises at the time of inspection.
09. It is to note here that Statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C of both accused persons had been recorded, in which they denied the allegations against them.
Both accused stated that no inspection was carried out at the subject premises as alleged and they were not indulged in any type of theft of electricity and the complaint was false one. PW03 wrongly identified them as they were present in the Court. BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 7 Both accused also stated that witnesses were interested witnesses of the complainant company and falsely implicated them in the present case being the officials of the complainant company and they were innocent and they had not committed any alleged offence of electricity theft.
Both accused chose not to lead DE.
10. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record as well as relevant provisions.
The provision of Regulation 52 (ix) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulation, 2007, is reproduced as under:
(ix) The report shall be signed by the Authorized Officer and each member of the inspection team and the same must be handed over to the consumer or his/her representative at site immediately under proper receipt. In case of refusal by the consumer or his/her representative to either accept or give a receipt, a copy of inspection report must be pasted at a conspicuous place in/outside the premises and photographed. Simultaneously, the report shall be sent to the consumer under Registered Post.
BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 8 It is to note here that in the present case as per the case of the complainant, PW02Mohd. Faisal and PW03Sh. Amit Kumar are star material witnesses of the complainant company as they were member of inspection team.
As per the testimony of PW02Mohd. Faisal, inspection was conducted at the subject premises and reports were prepared at site.
It is to note here that PW02Mohd. Faisal only testified regarding preparation of reports but which reports were prepared, PW02 did not testified. Further, PW02 did not utter a single word regarding refusal of alleged reports and pasting. More so, PW02, in postsummoning evidence, also did not rely upon any alleged reports which were allegedly prepared.
It is also to note here that as per the testimony of PW03 Sh. Amit Kumar, they inspected the subject premises and they prepared a report and they offered the report to the consumerPreeti Chawla but she refused to accept the same.
BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 9 It is to note here that PW03Amit Kumar also only testified regarding preparation of a report but which report was prepared, he also did not testified. Further, PW03 did not utter a single word regarding refusal of and pasting of alleged report. More so, PW03, in postsummoning evidence, also did not rely upon any alleged report which was allegedly prepared.
It is also to note here that no document has been proved on record that the accused persons had been served with the alleged inspection report through registered post.
Thus, complainant company failed to prove that alleged inspection report was ever served upon the accused persons. Therefore, the inspection team has not complied with the above said mandatory regulation which certainly goes against the complainant company.
It is also to note here that as per complaint, the inspection team prepared Inspection Report including meter detail report, Load Report and Seizure Memo at the site. BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 10 It is also very very relevant to pen down here that no witness has relied upon alleged Inspection Report, Load Report and Seizure memo in postsummoning evidence.
In light of abovesaid, the complainant company failed to prove that any abovesaid reports were ever prepared at site as alleged which certainly goes against the case of the complainant company.
It is to note here that as per the testimony of PW02Sh. Mohd. Faisal, during inspection no meter was found at the subject premises and the supply was running direct by tapping from bus bar using illegal wires which were two copper multistand wires of size 4 mm sq. and length around 2 ft. and all the illegal wires were seized.
It is also to note here that as per the testimony of PW03 Sh. Amit Kumar also, there was no meter at the first floor of the subject premsies and there was theft of electricity with the help of black colour wire and they removed the connected wire to the possible extent i.e. about 2 feets and took it as evidence. BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 11 It is very very relevant to pen down here that no alleged wire has been shown to PW02 and PW03 during their testimony who are, as per case of complainant company, star material material complainant witnesses as they were alleged members of the alleged inspection team.
In light of above, view of the Court is that complainant company failed to proved that alleged illegal wire was seized at the time of alleged inspection from the subject premises vide alleged seizure memo. So, complainant company failed to prove its own seizure memo. The complainant company also failed to prove that accused persons were indulged in direct theft of electricity with the help of alleged illegal wire which was allegedly seized at the time of alleged inspection from the subject premises.
It is also worthy to note here that as per the testimony of PW02Sh. Mohd. Faisal, Sh. Deepak Kumarvideographer from M/s Arora Photo Studio was also part of the raiding team. Furthermore, as per the testimony of PW03Sh. Amit Kumar, Sh. Deepak BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 12 photographer also accompanied with inspection team.
It is also relevant to pen down that PW02 and PW03 did not testify regarding any videography/photography of the theft of electricity in the subject premises.
Furthermore, the alleged videographer/photographer namely Sh. Deepak who allegedly accompanied the alleged inspection/raiding team has not been examined by the complainant company in this case. Had he examined, the accused persons would have got an opportunity to crossexamine him.
It is also very very relevant to pen down here that none of PWs have relied upon any Videography/photography/CD in post summoning evidence.
Here, view of the Court is that complainant company failed to prove that any videography/photography was conducted on the date of alleged inspection.
In this case, the inspection team has not joined the BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 13 independent public persons during alleged inspection.
It is relevant to pen down here that No PW testified during examinationinchief regarding joining of public witness during alleged inspection and as per the crossexamination of PW03Sh. Amit Kumar, they did not make any public witness.
In light of above, view of the Court is that nonjoining of the public persons during alleged inspection also goes against the complainant company.
So far as PW01Sh. Rajesh Arora is concerned, he is formal witness. PW01Sh. Rajesh Arora only testified regarding filing of the present complaint case.
In view of abovediscussion, the complainant company has failed to prove the offence alleged against both accused persons beyond reasonable doubt in the present case. Thus, the accused persons namely Preeti Chawla and Ramandeep Singh Chawla are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, accused persons BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 14 namely Preeti Chawla and Ramandeep Singh Chawla are acquitted for the offence punishable Under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Bail bonds of both accused persons stand canceled and their respective sureties are also discharged. Amount, if any, deposited by the accused persons as a condition for bail or in pursuance to interim order of the court qua the theft assessment bill raised by the company on the basis of alleged inspection dated 09.10.2013 be released by the complainant company after expiry of the period of appeal. It is to note here that bail bonds U/s 437 (A) Cr.P.C. of both accused persons have been furnished and accepted.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance . Digitally signed by REKHA
REKHA Date: 2019.09.18
16:30:34 +0530
Announced in open court (Rekha )
on day of 18th September, 2019 ASJ(Special Court)
Electricity/Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
BRPL Vs. Preeti Chawla & Anr. CC No. 323072/16 Page 15