Delhi District Court
State vs Saroj on 13 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ELECTRICITY COURT,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNW010052172024
SC No - 470/2024
FIR No - 573/2022
P.S - Mangolpuri
U/S - 135 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003
STATE VS. SAROJ
1 Date of Commission of Offence : 20.03.2021
2 Date of institution : 01.07.2024
3 Name of the complainant : Sh. R. K. Singh
TPDDL, Corporate
Enforcement Group
U.P. Samaj Building,
Pitampura, Parwana Road,
Mangolpuri, Outer District,
Delhi.
4 Name of accused, parentage & : Saroj, W/o Vijay, R/o Dera
address Gazi Khan, Jhuggi No. 798,
Pitampura, Delhi.
5 Offence complained : 135 of Electricity Act, 2003.
6 Plea of accused person : Pleaded not guilty.
7 Final order : Convicted
8 Date of Reserving judgment : 13.11.2025
9 Date of Final Order : 13.11.2025
FIR No. 573/2022
State Vs. Saroj Page No. 1 of 19
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
1. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that on 20.03.2021 at about 12:10 PM, a team of Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Complainant Company'), visited the premises i.e. Jhuggi No. 798, Dera Gaji Khan, Pitampura, Delhi.
During inspection no meter was found at the site and accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by tapping from distribution box at pole No. 504-26/26/1 by using two number red colour copper wire as phase and neutral further connected to the black colour two core wire, further connected to black colour aluminum wire, which was further connected to the internal wiring of the premises and connected load was found to be 4.023 KW for domestic purpose.
2. At the time of inspection, accused was present at site but she refused to sign the inspection report as well as did not allow the inspection team to past the same on wall of the premises. Inspection report dated 20.03.2021 was prepared at site. The illegal materials i.e. illegal red and black colour wires were seized. Site sketch was also prepared.
3. The photographer Naresh Kumar had taken 24 photographs at the time of inspection and conducted the videography. The Compact FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 2 of 19 Disc (hereinafter referred to as 'CD') of the photographs and videography along with certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act has been filed along with the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the police complaint, Ex.PW1/A was made, and accordingly the present First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR') was got registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as '2003, Act') in the Police Station Mangolpuri (hereinafter referred to as 'PS').
NOTICE AGAINST THE ACCUSED:-
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 was filed against accused by the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'IO'). The notice under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was framed against the accused on 03.08.2024, whereby she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to establish the liability of accused following points are required to be established:-
1. That inspection was conducted on 20.03.2021 at about 12:10 PM at Jhuggi No. 798, Dera Gaji Khan, Pitampura, Delhi.FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 3 of 19
2. At the time of inspection no meter was found at the site and accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by tapping from distribution box at pole No. 504-26/26/1 by using illegal wires.
3. Such direct theft of electricity was being used for domestic purpose and connected load was found to be 4.023 KW.
4. Accused Saroj was found at the spot in question.
5. Accused has committed direct theft of electricity by using illegal two number red colour copper wire as phase and neutral further connected to the black colour two core wire, further connected to black colour aluminum wire, which was further connected to the internal wiring of the premises.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
Prosecution has examined as much as four PW(s), whose testimonies are as under:-
6. PW-1 R. K. Singh, deposed that on 20.03.2021 an inspection was carried out by raiding team at the premises of the accused comprising of Pankaj Gupta, Rajesh Kumar and Naresh. PW-1 FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 4 of 19 further deposed that on the basis of documents i.e., inspection report, seizure memo, site plan, 24 photographs, one CD and one certificate under Section 65 B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act and final assessment bill of Rs.62,750/- he filed a complaint exhibited as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A, with the police station Maurya Enclave for registration of FIR. PW-1 further deposed that original documents were also handed over in the said police station.
7. During cross-examination PW-1 has stated that he was not part of raiding team and has merely filed the complaint after going through the material provided by raiding team.
8. PW-2 Pankaj Gupta deposed that on 20.03.2021, he was posted as Senior Manager at CEG officer with the complainant company. PW-2 further deposed that on 20.03.2021, he as raiding team member along with Rajesh Kumar and Naresh Kumar inspected the premises of the accused where no meter was found to be installed and accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity from distribution box installed at TPDDL Pole No. 504-26/26/1 by means of red colour and black colour cable further connected with the internal wiring on the premises at mentioned site to run the entire connected load and connected load was found to be 4.1 KW for domestic purpose.
FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 5 of 199. PW-2 deposed that accused was present at the time of inspection along with her daughter. PW-2 correctly identified the accused, who was present in the court. PW-2 deposed that inspection report Ex.PW2/A bearings his signatures at points A and B. PW-2 further deposed that he tried to hand over the copy of inspection report to the accused but accused neither signed the same nor allowed to paste copy thereof at her premises. The illegal wires were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B bearing his signatures at point A. PW-2 further deposed that he tried to hand over the copy of seizure memo to the accused but accused neither signed the same nor allowed to paste copy thereof at her premises. PW-2 further deposed that the site sketch was also prepared which is Ex.PW2/C bearing his signatures at point A depicting the premises at point X. PW-2 further identified the case property i.e., one number of red colour and two number black colour wire as Ex.P-1 (colly.).
10.During cross-examination, it is stated by PW-2 that it was a routine inspection carried out by the department. With regard to illegal wire which is stated to be recovered from the spot, it is stated that similar wires are available in the market, however, suggestion regarding case property planted upon the accused is denied. PW-2 has further stated that public persons were present at the spot at the time of inspection but none joined despite FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 6 of 19 request. PW-2 has further stated that they have not verified the ownership document of the accused. PW-2 has stated that he remained outside at the time of premises and photographer and other team members went inside the premises for inspection. PW-2 has further stated that case property was not sealed at the spot and it was sealed by the police official. PW-2 has further stated that case property was not sealed in his presence.
11. PW-3 Naresh Kumar, who is a photographer by profession deposed that on 20.03.2021 he along with Pankaj Gutpa and Rajesh Kumar had gone to the premises of the accused and upon the instructions of raiding team member, he had taken 24 photographs exhibited as Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-24 (colly.). He had also conducted the videography and photography of the inspection. Videography is exhibited as Ex.PW3/B. Certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW3/C bearing his signatures at point A . PW-3 deposed that accused was present in the premises during inspection and he had taken photographs which are on record. PW-3 also identified the accused correctly in the court.
12.No material contradiction emerged in the cross examination of the said witness and he has reiterated whatever he has stated in his examination in chief.
FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 7 of 1913.PW-4 SI Braham Prakash deposed that on 04.04.2022 he was posted at PS Mangolpuri and his duty hours were from 04:00 PM to 12 midnight. He further deposed that at about 07:36 PM, he received rukka of the present case from HC Vinod, on the basis of which the present case was registered. He made endorsement on the rukka exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. Copy of FIR and original rukka was handed over to HC Vinod for handing over the same, as the further investigation was marked to HC Vinod. He filed certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act exhibited as Ex.PW4/A.
14.PW-4 is the duty officer who has registered the FIR in the present case. Nothing more than that has been stated by him. The nature of this witness is, therefore, formal in nature and it is reflected that registration of FIR has not been disputed by the accused even otherwise.
15.PW-6 ASI Vinod deposed that on 04.04.2022, he was posted at PS Mangolpuri. He deposed that after registration of FIR the present case was marked to him. He had received the case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A from the officials of TPDDL, recorded the statement of witnesses. He further deposed that upon his transfer to PS Paschim Vihar he had handed over the case file to MHCR, PS Mangolpuri.
FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 8 of 1916.PW-6 is the first IO in the present case who received the copy of the FIR for investigation. He recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter he was transferred to some other police station. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he had visited the premises two three times. PW-6 has stated that the case property i.e., illegal wire was handed over to him by TPDDL officials in unsealed condition which was sealed by him.
17.PW-5 HC Vinod Kumar was the second IO of the present case. He had given notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C exhibited as Ex.PW5/A to the accused for joining the investigation. HC Vinod Kumar visited the premises of the accused Saroj and had prepared the site sketch Ex.PW5/B.
18. The role of PW-5 is that being second IO he gave notice under Section 41 A Cr.P.C to accused and filed the charge-sheet in the present case. During his cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that he had also visited the premises in question and inspected the same. Besides this no material contradiction has emerged.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED:-
19. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded on 17.09.2025. All incriminating evidence was put to the accused. Accused stated that she is innocent and has been falsely FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 9 of 19 implicated in the instant case. No notice was served by the IO to her. She had not received any inspection report or seizure memo from the officials of TPDDL. Accused preferred not to lead evidence in her defence.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED.
20.During arguments, Ld .counsel for the accused has stated that the present case has been planted upon her. She was not present at the spot at the time of inspection. It is further stated that only one member of raiding team i.e., PW-2 has been examined. The other person examined by complainant is PW-3 photographer and PW-1, the complainant who was not part of the inspection team, along with PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, who are the police officials. It is stated that PW-2 did not go inside the premises, therefore, whatever he has alleged is on the basis of hearsay statement of others. Case property i.e., illegal wire, stated to have been seized from the spot, is such that similar wire is easily available in the market and as it has not been sealed at the spot but by the IO later on as stated by PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 as well, therefore, the case property has been planted upon the accused by TPDDL officials. All the photographs which are taken by PW-3 are manipulated. Ld. Counsel for accused, however, has not denied that at the time of inspection, various electric appliances were found at the premises in question and there was no electric meter at the site at FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 10 of 19 that time. Ld. Counsel for accused stated that no document pertaining to ownership of the premises have been filed on record, however, it is not denied that the premises belongs to accused and the lady who is visible in one of the photographs exhibited as Ex.PW1/A-1 to Ex.PW1/A-24 is the daughter of accused who was found at the spot at the time of inspection.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-
21.It is a matter of record that the present case is the case of direct theft of electricity which has been committed by the accused and notice under Section 135 of Electricity Act has been framed against the accused. This Section 135 of the said Act read as under:-
"135. Theft of electricity -
(1) Whoever, dishonestly,-
(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 11 of 19
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter;
or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised;
so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both:"
INGREDIENTS:-
22.From the bare perusal of the above section, it is reflected that the section 135 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are not relevant for the present case as there are no allegations to this effect as reflected from the charge sheet. As per the allegations in the said section 135 (1), only sub section (a) is the relevant to consider here. Ingredients of 135 (1) of Electricity Act are as under:-
i. There is dishonest intention.
ii. Such person has made or taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 12 of 19 underground or under water lines or cables or licensee or supplier.
iii. Such person is the user or consuming the electricity.
iv. Such act is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both.
23.From the above mentioned ingredients, therefore, entire evidence lead by prosecution is analyzed in light of above mentioned ingredients which are required to be established by prosecution against accused in order to prove his liability beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, in order to prove its case, the prosecution assisted by complainant company, therefore, is required to establish the liability of accused beyond reasonable doubt:-
a) Accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by tapping from distribution box at pole No. 504-26/26/1 by using two number red colour copper wire as phase and neutral further connected to the black colour two core wire, further connected to black colour aluminum wire, which was further connected to the internal wiring of the premises and connected load was found to be 4.023 KW for domestic purpose.FIR No. 573/2022
State Vs. Saroj Page No. 13 of 19
b) That the accused has committed the theft for domestic purpose.
24.From the careful perusal of the record, it is reflected that complainant has shown that at the time of inspection conducted on 20.03.2021 at the premises in question, daughter of accused was found present at the spot. During cross examination of all the witnesses including the testimony of photographer PW-3 Naresh Kumar have stated that daughter of accused was present at the spot at the premises in question when inspection was carried out. Photographs taken by PW-3 also reflects that she was present at the spot. She is clearly visible in one of the photographs Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-24. During cross-examination of all the PWs accused has not been able to dispute the presence of daughter of accused at the spot at the time of inspection. It is further reflected from the perusal of entire record that it is not the case of accused that her daughter was not residing there or accused was residing at some other place, other than the place where inspection was carried out.
COMMITTAL OF THEFT BY ACCUSED
25.At the outset, it is important to mention here that two things are required to establish her liability beyond reasonable doubt:-
i) Mens rea i.e. guilty mind and FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 14 of 19
ii) Actus reus i.e. action Penultimate act committed by accused.
26.With regard to mens rea i.e., guilt mind, it is stated by the complainant that premises in question belongs to accused Saroj or she is the user of the premises as well as electricity which is used illegally by her by directly tapping the wire from Pole of TPDDL to her premises. There is no defence taken by the accused except stating that she is innocent. It is important to mention that there is no evidence led by accused in her defence. Thus, the primary burden of proving the liability of accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the complainant which is two fold that she has not only used the illegal wire as mentioned in the documents filed along with the charge-sheet but has connected the said illegal wire from TPDDL Pole to her premises and has been consuming the electricity.
27.With regard to actus reus, it is the primary duty of the complainant to show and establish from the record that the act of committing theft has been done by the accused. In this regard, however, there is no direct evidence or statement of any independent witness who had seen the accused hooking the wire and directly connecting it from the internal wiring of her house. It is a matter of record that at the time of inspection, no meter was found at the spot. The inspection is stated to have been conducted on 20.03.2021 at about FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 15 of 19 12:10 PM, which is not an early morning raid. In this regard, therefore, circumstantial evidence is to be perused.
28. It is a matter of record that at the time of inspection no meter was found at the spot. Photographs filed on record which are stated to have been taken by PW-3 have been disputed by giving suggestions, however, during entire trial as well as final arguments, accused has not disputed the fact that the photographs filed on record are pertaining to her premises and the lady visible in the photograph is her daughter. Thus, it appears that these photographs seems to have been disputed merely for the sake of controverting this fact but without any supporting evidence. It is needless to say that there is no evidence from the side of the accused nor any other fact have been alleged at the time of recording of her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. These photographs which are pertaining to inside of the premises of the accused are reflecting various electric appliances. It is a matter of record that no meter was found at the spot.
29.During final arguments, accused and her counsel was asked as to when there was no electric meter installed at the premises, then how all such electric appliances were being run or maintained by her. No satisfactory answer has been furnished. It is reflected from the record that connected load has been calculated as per DERC Regulations, 2017. It is further reflected from the photographs FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 16 of 19 filed on record is that at the time of inspection daughter of accused had provided aadhar card of accused which is containing her address as same as mentioned in the inspection report. Thus, inspection was carried out on 20.03.2021 at the address of accused, is also established from the record. Therefore, following facts supported with evidence, documentary and oral, have been reflected.
i. That inspection was carried out on 20.03.2021 at about 12:10 PM at Jhuggi No. 798, Dera Gaji Khan, Pitampura, Delhi where no meter was found to be installed.
ii. The said premises belonged to the accused.
iii. That no meter was found at the site and accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by tapping from distribution box at pole No. 504-26/26/1 by using illegal wires.
iv. That the illegal wires i.e., two number red colour copper wire as phase and neutral further connected to the black colour two core wire, further connected to black colour aluminum wire, which was further connected FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 17 of 19 to the internal wiring of the premises for running the entire load.
v. That the connected load was found to be 4.023 KW for domestic purpose.
vi. During inspection daughter of accused had also provided copy of aadhar card wherein address of accused is mentioned as same as the place where raid was carried out.
vii. As per the photographs placed on record, electric appliances are also visible being used by the accused in her premises.
viii. Illegal wires were also removed and seized from the premises of the accused which has not been disputed by the accused during the course of trial. Illegal wires are also visible in the photographs placed on record.
CONCLUSION:-
30.Thus, in the light of above discussion, in my considered opinion, prosecution alongwith complainant have established the liability FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 18 of 19 of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. Accused Saroj is hereby convicted for the said offence.
31.Put up for determination of civil liability and order on sentence on Digitally signed by 10.12.2025. PRASHANT PRASHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.11.18 10:56:09 +0530 Announced in the open court (PRASHANT KUMAR) today i.e., on 13.11.2025 ASJ (Electricity)/ Distt. N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi FIR No. 573/2022 State Vs. Saroj Page No. 19 of 19