Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Shanu @ Zebran on 30 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (Electricity), EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No.706/2021
FIR No.6/2020
U/s 135/150 of Electricity Act
PS Dayalpur
State versus 1) Shanu @ Zebran
S/o Sh. Mohd. Aslam
2) Mohd. Akram
S/o Late Sh. Mohd. Umar
Both R/o H.No.C-72, 3rd Floor,
Khasra No.80, Gali No.1,
Chand Bagh, Delhi-110094
Date of institution 14.12.2021
Arguments heard 23.03.2022
Date of judgment 30.03.2022
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the prosecution case:-
1. The BSES Yamuna Power Limited (hereinafter referred as complainant company/BSES) through its Sr. Manager Sh. Mriganka Ghosh, had made a complaint under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to SHO PS Dayalpur, against the accused Shanu @ Zebran with a prayer to register an FIR against him under section 135 of the Act.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that as per directions of ASV.P. (Enf.-I Central), on 16.09.2019, at 9.10 am, an inspection was FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 1 of 18 carried out by the joint inspection team of the complainant company comprising of Sh. Mriganka Ghosh (Sr. Manager), Sh. Satish Kumar (DET) and Sh. Montu (Linemen) at the premises of accused i.e. C-72, 3 rd Floor, Part-III, Khasra No.80, Gali No.1, Chand Bagh, Pole No. KWN-D-
874, Delhi-110094. At the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at site and the user/accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through two Black colour aluminium wires which were connected to BSES LV Main. Total connected load was found to be 4.527 KW which was being used for domestic purpose. Necessary videography of the connected load was recorded by the videographer Sh. Mohsin Ali. It is averred that the communication took place with the accused as well as confession of the accused that he was indulged in direct theft of electricity was also recorded by the videographer. The inspection report and load report were prepared at the spot. The illegal material could not be removed to excessive height and seizure memo was prepared accordingly. An advisory notice was also issued to the accused but the user/accused refused to sign the same. On the basis of inspection, the complainant company assessed the demand to the tune of Rs.74,144/-. Accordingly, following the guidelines of DERC, theft bill was raised and sent to the accused but accused failed to deposit the said amount. Original CD of the said videography alongwith Certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act was also submitted with the complaint. Thus, a prayer was made in the complaint to register an FIR against the accused under section 135 of the Act.
3. The SHO marked the said complaint (Ex.PW2/6) to Duty Officer FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 2 of 18 with the direction to register an FIR and hand over the investigation of the case to HC Sunil, the IO of the case. The Duty Officer registered the present FIR against the accused under section 135 of the Act and handed over the investigation of the case to IO. Thereafter, IO issued notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to the complainant/manager of the BSES to produce the relevant documents. IO visited inspected premises, prepared site plan and served the accused Shanu Zebran with the notice under section 41.1A Cr.P.C. Accused Shanu @ Zebran joined the investigation. IO interrogated him. During interrogation, it was revealed that inspected premises belongs to Mohd. Akram. Thereafter, IO served Mohd. Akram with the notice under section 41.1A Cr.P.C. Mohd. Akram joined the investigation. IO interrogated him and during interrogation, Mohd. Akram disclosed that the inspected premises belongs to him and accused Shanu @ Zebran is his wife's brother (brother-in-law) and inspected premises was given to accused Shanu @ Zebran for residential purpose without any rent and in this regard, IO prepared a report (Ex.PW1/8). IO also prepared interrogation reports of accused Shanu @ Zebran and accused Mohd. Akram. IO also collected copy of Aadhar Card as well as DL of accused Shanu and copy of Aadhar of accused Mohd. Akram. IO also collected copy of property document i.e. GPA as per which inspected premises belongs to accused Mohd. Akram. IO bound down both the accused persons vide pabandinamas. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the both the accused persons under section 135/150 of the Act.
4. On 23.02.2022, notice for the commission of offence under FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 3 of 18 section 135 of the Act was given to accused Shanu @ Zebran while notice for the commission of offences under section 135/150 of the Act was given to accused Mohd. Akram. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined following witnesses. In order to put the facts in chronological order, the testimony of members of inspection team is being discussed first:-
(5.1) PW2 Sh. Mriganka Ghosh is the then Sr. Manager of the complainant company. This witness deposed that on 16.09.2019, at about 9.10 am, an inspection was conducted by the enforcement team comprising of himself, PW2 Sh. Satish Kumar (DET), PW4 Sh. Montu (Lineman) and Sh. Mohsin Ali (Videographer) at the premises of accused Shanu. During inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at the premises of the accused and the accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through Black colour aluminium cable which was found connected to LV Mains of BSES. The total connected load was found to the tune of 4.527 KW which was being used for domestic purpose at Second Floor. PW2 further deposed that during inspection, accused Shanu @ Zebran was present there and entire videography of the inspection proceedings was taken by the videographer Sh. Mohsin Ali. The CD containing videography of the inspection proceedings has been brought on record as Ex.PW2/1. During evidence, the CD was played on the laptop and after seeing the video, witness identified the video which was recorded by the videographer at the time of inspection. The witness also identified FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 4 of 18 the accused Shanu in the said video. The inspection report Ex.PW2/2 and the load report Ex.PW2/3 were prepared at the spot. However, the illegal wire could not be removed due to excessive height and seizure memo Ex.PW2/4 was prepared accordingly. PW2 further deposed that entire set of documents was tendered to the accused but he refused to sign and accept the same. On the basis of inspection report, theft bill of Rs.74,143/-
(Ex.PW2/5) was raised and sent to accused. Thereafter, on 05.01.2020, he lodged a complaint (Ex.PW2/6) with SHO PS Dayalpur for registration of FIR.
(5.2) PW3 Sh. Satish Kumar is the Diploma Trainee Engineer (DET). This witness is another member of the inspection team and he also corroborated the testimony of PW2 and deposed on the similar lines of the testimony of PW2.
(5.3) PW4 Sh. Montu is the Lineman. This witness is another member of the inspection team and he also corroborated the testimony of PW2 and PW3 and deposed on the similar lines of the testimony of PW2 and PW3. He also deposed that the Black colour illegal wires could not be removed due to excessive height.
(5.4) PW1 HC Sunil Kumar is the IO of the case. This witness deposed that on 05.01.2020, on the direction of SHO, the complaint (Ex.PW2/6) lodged by Sh. Mriganka Ghosh, Sr. Manager of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. was handed over to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR No.6/2020 was registered and investigation of the case was marked to him. The copy of FIR has been brought on record as FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 5 of 18 Ex.PW1/1. Thereafter, he served a notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C/Ex.PW1/2) to the complainant to join the investigation. On 26.03.2020, he also served the accused Shanu @ Zebran with the notice U/s 41.1(A) of the Cr.P.C./Ex.PW1/3 and prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/4. On the same day, accused Shanu @ Zebran joined the investigation. He interrogated the accused Shanu @ Zebran and prepared the interrogation report Ex.PW1/5. PW1 further deposed that during interrogation, accused Shanu @ Zebran produced the copy of GPA of the inspected premises and copy of his Aadhar Card as well as his Driving Licence. The same have been brought on record as Mark A colly. Accused Shanu was bound down vide Pabandinma Ex.PW1/5. Thereafter, on the basis of documents of the inspected premises produced by the accused Shanu, on 21.04.2020, he served the accused Mohd. Akram with the notice under section 41.1(A) Cr.P.C/Ex.PW1/6. On the same day, accused Mohd. Akram joined the investigation. He interrogated accused Mohd. Akram and prepared the interrogation report Ex.PW1/7. During investigation, it was revealed that the the inspected premises belongs to accused Mohd. Akram who had given the inspected premises to accused Shanu @ Zebran, brother of his wife for residential purpose without any rent and in this regard the statement of accused Mohd. Akram was recorded. The said statement has been brought on record as Ex.PW1/8. During investigation, accused Mohd. Akram handed over copy of his Aadhar Card which has been brought on record as Mark B. He bound down the accused Mohd. Akram vide Pabandinama Ex.PW1/9.
6. After culmination of prosecution evidence, statements of both FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 6 of 18 accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Shanu @ Zebran admitted that an inspection was carried at the inspection premises on the aforesaid date and time. He also admitted that at the time of inspection he was present at the spot and videography of the inspection proceedings was recorded by videographer Sh. Mohsin Ali. Accused Shanu @ Zebran did not deny that the inspected premises belongs to co- accused Mohd. Akram and he was user of the electricity at the inspected premises. However, accused Mohd. Akram denied the allegations. Both accused persons stated that they have settled the matter with the complainant company and they have also made the payment and an NOC has been issued. Both accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
7. Final arguments have been heard from the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused. During the course of arguments, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that at the time of inspection, no electricity meter was available at the inspected premises. It is also submitted that inspected premises belongs to accused Mohd. Akram and during relevant time and user/co-accused Shanu @ Zebran was residing in the inspected premises and thus, accused Mohd. Akram let the user/co-accused Shanu @ Zebran to commit direct theft of electricity. It is further argued that the complainant company has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
8. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, argued that accused FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 7 of 18 persons are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons have 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.
9. Before dealing with the factual aspect of the present case, it is deemed appropriate to specify the legal position and relevant provisions of the Act which are required to be gone into for appropriate disposal of the cases pertaining to section 135/150 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 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 -
FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 8 of 18
(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 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.
FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 9 of 18 (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.
10. There is a presumption mentioned in the third proviso of Section 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".
11. As per prosecution case, at the time of inspection, no electricity meter was available at the inspected premises and the user/accused Shanu @ Zebran was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. The inspected premises belongs to accused Mohd. Akram and the user/-co-accused Shanu @ Zebran was residing there. Being owner of the inspected premises, accused Mohd. Akram abetted the user/accused Shanu @ Zebran to commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, the onus was on the prosecution to prove these allegations against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
12. PW2 Sh. Mriganka Ghosh (Sr. Manager), PW3 Sh. Satish Kumar (DET) and PW4 Sh. Montu (lineman) are the material witnesses in this FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 10 of 18 case. They have corroborated the allegations made in the complaint Ex.PW2/6 and their testimony is in conformity with the documents i.e. inspection report Ex.PW2/2, load report Ex.PW2/3 and seizure memo Ex.PW2/4.
13. PW3 Sh. Satish Kumar (DET) was also one of the members of the inspection team. He has corroborated the testimony of PW2 and also identified the accused Shanu @ Zebran to in video contained in the CD Ex.PW2/1.
14. PW4 Sh. Monu (Lineman) was also one of the members of the inspection team. He has corroborated the testimony of PW2 and PW3 and also deposed that the illegal wires could not be removed due to excessive height.
15. It is clear from the testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW4 that on 16.09.2019, at about 9.10 am, an inspection was carried out at the premises of accused persons by the inspecting team members/officials of complainant company and at the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed and this fact has not been disputed by the accused persons in the cross-examination of PW2, PW3 and PW4. It is further clear from the document/GPA Mark A, document Ex.PW1/8 as well as testimony of PW1 HC Sunil Kumar that the inspected premises belongs to accused Mohd. Akram. It is also clear from the testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW4 as well as document Ex.PW1/8 that co-accused/user Shanu Zebran was residing in the inspected premises and both accused persons have also admitted this fact in their statements recorded under section 313 FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 11 of 18 Cr.P.c. PW2, PW3 and PW4 categorically deposed that at the time of inspection no electricity meter was found installed at the inspected premises and this fact has not been disputed by the accused persons in the cross-examination of these witnesses. It is further clear from the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as interrogation reports Ex.PW1/7 that the user/accused Shanu @ Zebran was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through Black colour illegal wires which was connected to LV Mains of BSES. Inspection proceedings were recorded by videographer and CD containing videography of the said inspection proceedings was brought on record as Ex.PW2/1. It is also clear from the testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW4 that the Black Colour illegal wires could not be removed by the lineman/PW4 Sh. Montu due to excessive height and this fact has not been disputed by the accused persons in the cross-examination of PW2, PW3 and PW4. Perusal of cross-examination of PW2, PW3 and PW4 shows that though, the accused persons endevaoured to dispute the factum of inspection, preparation of inspection documents, seizure memo and videography of the inspection proceedings, however, they have 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 persons have not specifically disputed the genuineness of assessment of load assessed by the complainant as mentioned in the load report Ex.PW2/3. During evidence, PW2 and PW3 identified the video recorded by videographer Sh. Mohsin Ali. Accused persons have also not disputed the identity of the inspected premises shown in the video contained in the CD Ex.PW2/1. In FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 12 of 18 their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C, both accused have also admitted that accused Shanu was residing in the inspected premises at the time of inspection. Furthermore, in the statement Ex.PW1/8 which was recorded by the IO, accused Mohd. Akram has clearly stated that inspected premises belongs to him and he has given the said premises to his wife's brother i.e. accused Shanu @ Zebran for residential purpose without any rent. In his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Shanu @ Zebran has clearly admitted that inspection was conducted at the inspected premises and at the time of inspection was present at the spot and videography of the inspection proceedings was recorded by the videographer Sh. Mohsin Ali. Thus, inspection proceedings conducted at the time of inspection as well as videography of inspection proceedings recorded by videographer Sh. Mohsin Ali stands proved.
16. PW2, PW3 and PW4 have clearly deposed that accused/user Shanu @ Zebran was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. It is also clear from the statement of PW1 and document Ex.PW1/8 as well as document i.e. copy of GPA Mark A that the inspected premises belongs to accused Mohd. Akram. It is also clear from the statements of PW2, PW3 and PW4 as well as statement of accused Shanu @ Zebran recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C that at the time of inspection, accused Shanu @ Zebran was residing in the inspected premises which was given by Mohd. Akram. Thus, in view of settled provision of section 150 of the Act, the accused Mohd. Akram being the landlord of the inspected premises is liable for abetment of the offence as he let the user/accused Shanu @ Zebran commit direct theft of electricity through FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 13 of 18 illegal wires. Accused Shanu @ Zebran did not denied the inspection but stated that he was not indulged in any type of theft of electricity and that the documents regarding the inspection proceedings were not prepared at the spot. During evidence before the court, CD (Ex.PW2/1) containing video clip of inspection proceedings was played before the court which depicted the manner in which user/accused Shanu @ Zebran was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires.
17. As per record, the inspected premises belongs to accused Mohd. Akram, thus, it was his duty to ensure that no illegal activity is being carried out at his premises. It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the user/accused Shanu @ Zebran was indulged in direct theft of electricity. It is not the case of the accused Mohd. Akram that he was not aware about the factum of direct theft of electricity being committed by the accused Shanu @ Zebran. Rather, the owner/accused Mohd. Akram has endeavoured to deny the inspection as well as factum of direct theft of electricity committed by the accused Shanu @ Zebran. Though the accused Mohd. Akram has denied that the user/accused Shanu @ Zebran was indulged in direct theft of electricity, however, it is clear clear from his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, that he has settled the matter qua theft bill with the complainant company and he has already paid the settlement amount and an NOC has also been obtained by him. In case, accused Mohd. Akram was unaware that co-accused Shanu @ Zebran 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 himself from the said illegal activity of the accused.
FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 14 of 18 However, it is clear that accused Mohd. Akram did not take any action in this regard against the co-accused and his aforesaid conduct speaks for itself that he was well aware of the illegal act of the co-accused Shanu @ Zebran. Thus, under these facts and circumstances, it can be very well said that once the accused Mohd. Akram had come to know about the said illegal activity on the part of the co-accused, he ought to have taken appropriate action against him and he was also duty bound to inform the complainant about the same, however, he did not do the needful which shows that accused Mohd. Akram was fully aware of the said illegal activity being committed by the co-accused. Thus, under these circumstances, it can be very well said that accused Mohd. Akram has abetted the offence of direct theft of electricity and therefore, he is liable U/s 150 of the Act.
18. 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 that the user/co-accused Shanu @ Zebran who was residing in the inspected premises, was indulged in direct theft of electricity, in connivance with accused Mohd. Akram and therefore, in view of the third proviso of section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act 2003, it is to be presumed that accused Shanu @ Zebran was indulged in direct theft of electricity, in FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 15 of 18 connivance with accused Mohd. Akram, if they are unable to rebut the statutory presumption.
19. 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'."
20. In view of the settled law, now it is to be seen if the accused persons have taken any defence to rebut the presumption existed against them. Accused persons have simply stated in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that they have already settled the dispute and settlement amount has already been paid by them and an NOC has also been issued. Accused persons did not lead any defence evidence. If the Shanu @ Zebran was not indulged in direct theft of electricity or that he was using the electricity through any legal means, then the accused Shanu @ Zebran 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 accused Mohd. Akram was owner of the inspected premises during relevant time, which was given to accused Shanu @ Zebran for residential purpose. It is clear from the evidence led by prosecution that at the time of inspection, Shanu @ Zebran was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires.
FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 16 of 18 Accused persons have not brought any material on record or lead any evidence to disprove all these allegations. Thus, it is held that accused persons have 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' reported as 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 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".
20. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Shanu @ Zebran was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires which was connected to LV Mains of BSES. It is also proved on record that inspected premises belongs to accused Mohd. Akram and he had given the inspected premises to co-accused Shanu @ Zebran who was indulged in direct theft of electricity and accused Mohd. Akram let the accused Shanu @ Zebran commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, accused Mohd. Akram is guilty of FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 17 of 18 abetement of offence of direct theft of electricity. Accordingly accused Shanu @ Zebran is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act and accused Mohd. Akram is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 135 r/w section150 of the Electricity Act 2003. Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2022.03.30 17:29:17 +0530 Announced in open (Ajay Gupta) court on 30.03.2022 Addl. Sessions Judge (Electricity East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi FIR No.6/2020 State vs Shanu @ Zebran 18 of 18