Delhi District Court
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd vs Sh. Satya Naryan Rai (Deceased) ... on 20 September, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NAROTTAM KAUSHAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Complaint instituted on : 02.02.2008
Judgment reserved on : 20.09.2012
Judgment pronounced on : 20.09.2012
Complaint Case No. 93/2008
P.S. Badarpur, New Delhi
U/s 135 r/w/sec. 151 of Electricity Act, 2003
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Having its registered Office at
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi110 049
Through, Authorized Representative
Jaya Thakuria
...Appellants
Versus
1. Sh. Satya Naryan Rai (Deceased) (Proceedings abatted vide
Pole No. 26, H. No. 1, near Gurdwar order dated 22.05.2010)
Tajpur Village, Badarpur, New Delhi.
2. Goverdhan Rai
Pole No. 26, H. No. 1, near Gurdwar
Tajpur Village, Badarpur, New Delhi.
...Respondents
Present : Sh. S.K.Alok, proxy counsel for Sh.Rishab
Raj Jain, Adv. for complainant
Sh. S. Satyanarayana, Adv. for accused
JUDGMENT
1. Complaint u/s. 151 of the Electricity Act (hereinafter called 'the act') has been filed by the complainant against one Satya Narayan and C.C. No. 93/2008 Page 1 of page 6 2 Govardhan Rai seeking to try and convict them for the offence punishable U/sec. 135 read with Section 150 of the Act. Determination of their civil liability has also been prayed for. 2 It is the case of the complainant that on 24.07.2007, its authorised officers inspected the premises bearing House No. 1, near Gurudwara, Tajpur Village, Badarpur, New Delhi at Pole No. 26. At the time of inspection, premises was found to be used by accused No. 1 Satya Narayan. One electricity meter bearing No. 12476807 against K. No. 2541C3513618 was found installed at the premises in the name of accused No. 2 Govardhan Rai. Accused No. 1 Satya Narayan was found to be illegally using the electricity by directly tapping from the L.V. Mains with the aid of illegal wires. Accused No. 1 was thus found to be using, consuming and abstracting electricity illegally and committing theft of electricity by bypassing the meter. Accused No. 2 Govardhan Rai, who was the registered consumer of the connection had aided and abetted the offence of theft by allowing such an arrangement. A connected load of 20.1605 KW for commercial and . 920 KW for domestic use was directly running on theft supply. The illegal wire, electricity meter and change over switch were removed and seized. Photography of the inspection was carried out. On the basis of applicable tariff and connected load theft bill of Rs.8,67,086/ were raised. On the failure of accused persons to pay the same, C.C. No. 93/2008 Page 2 of page 6 3 present complaint was filed.
3 Cognizance of the complaint was taken by the Ld. predecessor of this Court and presummoning evidence was recorded. On the basis of presummoning evidence, the accused persons were summoned to face trial. Accused Satya Narayan was reported to have expired in the year 2007 and accused Govardhan Rai was reported to be residing at Dubai for the previous two years. On 16.12.2008, death certificate of accused No. 1 Satya Narayan Rai was placed on record and statement of his grandson was recorded to the same effect. The proceedings against the accused No. 1 Satya Narayan were declared to have abated vide order dated 22.05.2010. Accused No. 2 was admitted to bail with directions to deposit 15 % of the theft bill. Accused No. 2 was exempted from personal appearance on daytoday basis and finally on permanent basis. Notice of accusation u/s. 251 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was framed against the accused Govardhan on 17.07.2010. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He stated that he was not in India before, on or after the date of inspection, therefore, he had not abetted and aided accused No. 1 Satya Narayan for committing any theft of electricity.
4. Complainant, in support of its case, examined three witnesses. Sh. Binay Kumar - AR of the complainant was examined as PW1. He proved the filing of the complaint. Sh. Inderjeet, Videographer was C.C. No. 93/2008 Page 3 of page 6 4 examined as PW3. He is another witness whose testimony is of formal nature. He has proved the videography of inspection proceedings, which was subsequently converted into CD Ex.CW2/5.
5. The only material witness examined by complainant is Gaurav Pratap Singh as PW2. He has deposed that on 24.07.2007, he alongwith other members of the team inspected House No. 1, near Gurudwara, Tajpur Village, New Delhi where they found a change over switch connected through one source to L.T. Mains and other source was connected to the generator. The generator was found to be not in operation. They took photography of the premises. The connected load consisted of 45 sewing machines, one steam iron press, 2 coolers, 2 irons, water boiling system and other appliances. Illegal wire, change over switch and the meter were seized. He proved the inspection report and the load report.
6. A perusal of the testimony of the sole material witness Gaurav Pratap Singh (PW2) reveals that there is no averment that the premises was running on unauthorized supply of electricity. Even if this aspect be ignored, there is a total vacuum in the testimony of complainant's star witness, as regards the role of accused persons. None of the accused persons has been named in his testimony. There is no averment as to which one of the two accused persons was C.C. No. 93/2008 Page 4 of page 6 5 committing theft of electricity and as to which one of the accused persons was abetting the commission of offence of theft of electricity. In the absence of positive averment naming any of the accused persons, I am of the considered opinion that nothing incriminating has come up against any of the accused persons. I am thus of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to establish even an iota of evidence against the accused Govardhan Rai, who is facing trial for the offence of abetment to commit theft of electricity. Moreover, accused No. 1, who was allegedly committing theft of electricity having expired much before the date of inspection; I fail to understand as to how accused No. 2 Govardhan Rai can be held guilty for abetment of an offence, when the person allegedly abetted was not on the mother earth at the time of alleged commission of offence.
7. Nothing incriminating having come up against the accused, Statement u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is dispensed with. Request for adjournment to move application u/s. 319 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been declined. For ready reference, order declining adjournment is reproduced, herein below: "Sh. S.K. Alok, Counsel for complainant's company on instructions from the AR of the complainant prays for an adjournment. He has referred to order sheets dated 23.01.2010 and 22.05.2010, where it has C.C. No. 93/2008 Page 5 of page 6 6 been observed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court that the premises were occupied by the family of the accused No. 2. Ld. Counsel, therefore, prays for adjournment to enable the company to move an application u/s. 319 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 to summon the family members of accused No. 2 as additional accused persons.
I have perused the evidence which has already come up on record. There is no reference to any person by name or otherwise in the complainant's evidence to indicate the accused, leave alone additional accused persons. I, therefore, find no reason to grant adjournment to move any application u/s. 319 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 on nonexistent evidence. The prayer is declined."
8. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed. Accused Govardhan Rai is acquitted. Bail bonds are cancelled, surety is discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open ( NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
Court on 20.09.2012 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
C.C. No. 93/2008 Page 6 of page 6