Delhi District Court
State vs Kartar Singh on 22 January, 2016
Page No. -1- of 6
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT SINGLA
M.M.03(SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET NEW DELHI
State Vs Kartar Singh
FIR No : 283/97
P.S. : N.Garh
U.S. : 379 IPC R/W 39/44 I.E.Act
J U D G M E N T :
a. Sl. No. of the case and : 264 dt. 23.12.2014
date of its institution & 7 dt. 26.12.2014
b. Name of the complainant : Er. R.C.Tyagi, Asstt. Engineer
Z1101A, DVB, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
c. Date of commission of
offence : 29.04.1997
d. Name of the accused person : Sh. Kartar Singh S/o Sh. Maru Ram
P Village Nagri Sakrawati, PS Nazafgarh
P New Delhi110 043.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 379 IPC read with section
39/44 of I.E. Act
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Date reserved for orders : 30.11.2015
h. Final order : Convicted
i Date of such order : 22.01.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
FIR No. 283/97 St Vs. Kartar Singh
Page No. -2- of 6
1. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.04.1997 at K. No. 146612, village Nangli Sakrawati, accused Kartar Singh was found stealing electricity directly from DVB LV mains and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 39 of I.E. Act
2. Thereafter on 29.08.2008, charge u/s. 39 of I.E. Act was framed against accused Kartar Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined (11) eleven witnesses.
4. PW1 R.C.Tyagi & PW7 Sh. Om Prakash deposed that on 29.4.97, they along with enforcement, MTD, police official and along with subordinate field staff and photographer supervised the raid conducted by joint team. PW1 was posted as AE Zone 1101A. Raid was conducted at the premises of Kartar Singh, Bhola Ice Factory in Najafgarh. The K. No. of connection was 1466.12. They deposed that theft from pole through a wire was detected. Length of wire was approx 60 meters. The wire and meter no. 4D33502 were seized. This witness proved photographs which are now Mark PW1/A1 to A15. Copy of JIR is Ex PW1/B (OSR). PW1 made a formal complaint to SHO Ex PW1/C. On 30.4.97, PW1 went to spot with IO where a sketch of spot was prepared at his instance. Case property was deposited in PS vide seizure memo Ex PW7/A.
5. PW2 Ashok Kumar deposed that on 26.9.2000, he was posted as FIR No. 283/97 St Vs. Kartar Singh Page No. -3- of 6 Asstt. Engineer, DVB, Najafgarh. On that day, after going through the record of case FIR, he granted sanction which is Ex PW2/A of section 50 of Electricity Act .
6. PW3 ASI Umed Rao deposed that on 29.4.1997, he was posted as duty officer and recorded the formal FIR Ex PW3/A (OSR).
7. PW4 ASI Ishwar Singh deposed that on 18.9.2000, he had conducted the part investigation and arrested accused Kartar Singh and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex PW4/A and Ex PW4/B respectively.
8. PW5 Insp. Bhagwati Prasad deposed that on 29.4.1997, he was posted as SI at PS Nazafgarh and on receipt of copy of FIR Ex PW3/A from duty officer along with complaint Ex PW1/C, he met with complainant Sh. R.C.Tyagi, AE, DVB and procured the necessary documents i.e. JIR etc. Site plan Ex PW5/A was prepared by this witness. This witness tried to search accused but failed. This witness recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter further investigation was marked to another IO on his transfer.
9. PW6 SI Vidhyadhar Singh deposed that on 29.4.97, he was posted as PSI at Nazafgarh Police Station and he joined the raid with IO SI Bhagwati Prasad and some other police officials along with DVB officials at Bhola Ice Factory, Nazafgarh. Case property were seized by IO and deposited in the malkhana.
10. PW8 Sh. D.C.Sharma, Vice President, BRPL, deposed that in the month of July 2000, he was posted as XEN in DVB at Distt. Najafgarh and FIR No. 283/97 St Vs. Kartar Singh Page No. -4- of 6 in the above said month, he had counter signed on complaint U/s. 50 of Indian Electricity Act which is already Ex PW2/A.
11. PW9 Retd. SI Jaggu Ram deposed that in 1997, he was posted at PS Najafgarh as SI and during that year , he received present case file from MHCR for investigation and during the course of investigation, he visited Patiala House Court to attend the bail matter of accused and thereafter present case file was marked to some other IO as he was on earned leave.
12. PW10 Insp. Naresh Sangwan deposed that on 29.4.1997, he was posted at PS Nagafgarh as a SI and had conducted a raid at Ice Factory premises in the name of Bhola and during the raid, DVB staff seized one meter and wire from the abovesaid premises vide seizure memo Ex PW7/A. Witness was shown 15 photographs and witness correctly identified the same as Ex PW1/A1 to A15.
13. PW11 Ct. Rajesh deposed that on 18.9.2000, he was posted at PS Najafgarh as a constable. On that day, accused came to the PS and IO HC Iswar Singh arrested the accused in his presence and conducted the personal search of accused.
14. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 CrPC and accused did not lead any defence evidence.
15. I have heard the arguments as advanced by both the parties and gone through the entire material.
16. PW1 and PW7 proved that on 29.04.1997 a raid was conducted with the help of zonal staff, enforcement, MTD , police official and field staff at the factory of accused Kartar Singh and direct theft of FIR No. 283/97 St Vs. Kartar Singh Page No. -5- of 6 electricity was found taking place. Since, accused did not cross examined any witness, the testimonies of all the witnesses are unrebuttable. Accused had moved an application for cross examination of PW1 and PW2. However PW1 and PW2 were reported to be unserved for want of employee code. Since, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 were complete and court had given opportunity only in the interest of justice, and PW1 and PW2 had remained unserved due to reason beyond control of court, their testimony which were already recorded shall be read in evidence in view of the provisions contained in section 33 of Indian Evidence Act. However, even if we assume that evidence of PW1 and PW2 cannot be read in evidence then also the fact that PW7 have categorically deposed that raid was conducted at the factory of accused Katrar Singh where direct theft of electricity was found to be taking place and in view of the fact that his testimony is also unchallenged, this court has no hesitation to say that prosecution is able to prove that electricity theft at the factory of accused Kartar Singh was found to be taking place. Ld counsel further argued that no evidence has been produced that the premises was belonging to accused Kartar Singh. However, since no witness was cross examined and even not a single suggestion was put to any witness to counter that factory was not belonging to accused Kartar Singh, now defence cannot be taken at this stage that premises does not belong to him.
FIR No. 283/97 St Vs. Kartar Singh Page No. -6- of 6 Thus, in view of above discussion it stand proved that it was premises of accused Kartar Singh where theft of electricity was being committed. Accordingly, accused Kartar Singh is convicted of the offence for which he was charged with.
17. Be listed on 28.01.2016 for arguments and order on sentence.
Announced and dictated in (ANKIT SINGLA)
the open Court on 22.1.2016 MM03 South District
Saket Court complex, New Delhi
FIR No. 283/97 St Vs. Kartar Singh