Delhi District Court
State vs . Jagdish on 13 April, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
1) JAGDISH.
S/O SH. BALWANT,
R/O C258, JJ COLONY
WAZIRPUR, DELHI.
FIR NO. 51/09.
S.C. NO. 8/10.
P.S. ASHOK VIHAR.
U/S 135 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003
R/W SECTION 379 IPC.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.02.2010
DATE OF HEARING ARGUMENTS : 13.04.2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13.04.2010
J U D G M E N T
In the present case, charge for the offence punishable Under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 was framed against the accused, namely, Jagdish with the allegations that on 17.12.08, the joint inspection team of the complainant company STATE VS. JAGDISH FIR NO. 51/09 1/5 2 inspected his premises i.e. H. No. C258, JJ Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Ashok Vihar and the said team found that he was indulged in direct theft of electricity by laying wires directly tapping from NDPL LV Mains. At the time of inspection, a load of 1.130 KW was found connected for domestic purpose and therefore, he thereby caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the complainant company i.e. NDPL.
2. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed a trial.
3. Prosecution has examined one witness, namely, PW1, Sh. R.N. Gupta to prove the allegations against the accused.
4. PW1, Sh. R.N. Gupta, has deposed that he is the authorised representative of the complainant company i.e. NDPL in the present case. He has further deposed that the accused, namely, Jagdish has settled the matter with the complainant company i.e. NDPL and he has deposited the total payment of Rs.6,390/, in the office of the complainant company i.e. NDPL, towards the full and final settlement regarding the bill in question of Rs.12,780/, bearing EAC No. 53557. He has further deposed that the accused has settled the civil liability and has deposited the total payment of the said amount of Rs.6,390/, in the office of the complainant company i.e. STATE VS. JAGDISH FIR NO. 51/09 2/5 3 NDPL, towards the full and final settlement. He has deposed that the complainant company i.e. NDPL does not want to pursue the case any more.
5. In view of the evidence of PW1, Sh. R.N. Gupta, statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C has been dispensed with.
6. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the record file carefully.
7. It is well settled preposition of criminal law that prosecution has to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Balraj Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, 1976 Cr.L.J. 1471 (DB) (Punjab) in which it was observed as follows: The guilt of accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record. Even if, there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole, the prosecution may be true, but between 'may be true' and 'must be true', there is invariably a long STATE VS. JAGDISH FIR NO. 51/09 3/5 4 distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.
8. In the case in hand, on the basis of inspection dated 17.12.08, complainant company raised a bill against the accused Jagdish and the accused has deposited the total payment of Rs.6,390/, in the office of the complainant company i.e. NDPL, towards the full and final settlement regarding the bill in question of Rs.12,780/, bearing EAC No. 53557. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 Sh. R.N. Gupta, that the accused has deposited the payment of Rs.6,390/ towards the full and final settlement regarding the bill in question. Now, no grievance is left against the accused, namely, Jagdish, so far as the cause of action of the present case is concerned. The accused, namely, Jagdish has satisfied his civil liabilities with the complainant company i.e. NDPL. Since, the accused has satisfied his civil liability with the complainant company, no fruitful purpose will be served by imposing any criminal penalty upon the accused. Accordingly, the accused, namely, Jagdish is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Further, the accused is not entitled to claim the amount of Rs.6,390/ which STATE VS. JAGDISH FIR NO. 51/09 4/5 5 has been deposited by him towards the fulfillment of his civil liability.
9. Accused, Jagdish is on bail in this case. His personal bond and surety bond are cancelled. His surety is discharged.
File be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAMESH KUMAR)
COURT TODAY i.e.13.04.2010 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.