Delhi District Court
Tpddl vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 Of 12 on 14 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH MALIK: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, ELECTRICITY COURT, DISTT. NORTH
WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CC No : 53189/2016
P.S. : KANJHAWALA
U/S : 135 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited
Erstwhile (North Delhi Power Limited)
Regd. Office At:
Grid Sub Station Building
Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp
Delhi-110 009
Also At:
EAC, HRDI, Sector-3, Rohini,
Delhi-110 085
Through:
Shri O.P. Sharma ....... Complainant
VERSUS
Manoj @ Tunda
S/o Satnarayan
R/o Village Qutabgarh, Delhi ........ Accused
DATE OF INSTITUTION 14.08.2012
DATE OF RESERVATION 29.11.2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT 14.12.2021
TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12
JUDGMENT
Inspection dated 23.12.2011 of the agriculture field of the accused by TPDDL:-
1. According to the prosecution, the team of TPDDL visited the agriculture field in the village Qutab Gargh on 23.12.2011 and found that one Jaipal was indulging in the direct theft of electricity by illegal tapping from the NDPL LT Mains Switch through illegal black cable. As per the inspection report i.e. Ex. PW-2/1, no meter was found at the site.
The connected load was found to be Tubewell Pump Motor of 7.460 KW. The photographs Ex. PW-2/A1 to Ex. PW-2/A12 were taken. The illegal black colour 3 core cable was seized vide seizure memo i.e. Ex. PW-2/2. The inspection report i.e. Ex. PW-2/1 and the seizure memo Ex. PW-2/2 do not contain the signatures of the user. It has been written in the inspection report and in the seizure memo that the accused had refused to sign. Thereafter, the complainant company i.e. TPDDL made the police complaint against the user namely Jaipal. Accordingly, the FIR was registered u/s 135 Electricity Act, 2003.
2. During investigation, the site plan i.e. Ex. PW-5/X was prepared, showing the place of theft of electricity. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded. The accused was bound down u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. The statement of the inspecting team members were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. In the inspection report, the name of the accused was written as Jaipal S/o Sh. Mauji Ram, however, during investigation, it was revealed that the agriculture field belonged to the present accused namely Manoj @ Tunda. The inspecting team members again visited the site to show the place of occurrence to the IO where TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12 they met Raj Singh i.e. PW-6, who told them that the agriculture field belonged to the present accused Manoj. The statement of an independent witness namely Raj Singh was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present accused Manoj @ Tunda.
3. After filing of the charge-sheet, the cognizance was taken. After hearing both the sides, the charge u/s 135 Electricity Act was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Before discussing the evidence of the complainant's case, let us first discuss the legal provisions relating to the theft of the electricity:-
Legal Provisions Dealing With Theft of Electricity:-
Section 135 of the Electricity Act:
"(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 electronic meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12 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"
DERC (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017:-
Regulation-60: Inspections of the premises and electrical installations by Authorized officer:-
1. The Authorized officer shall promptly conduct inspection of any premises either suo-
moto or on receipt of information regarding theft of electricity:
Provided that the Authorized officer may avail the assistance of employees of the Licensee for conducting inspection.
2. The Authorized officer shall carry his visiting card bearing his photograph and photo identity card issued under Regulation 55(3).
3. Photo ID shall be shown and visiting card bearing his photograph shall be handed over to the consumer or the occupier of the premises before entering the premises and take the acknowledgment.
4. The Authorized officer shall prepare an inspection report as per the provisions under these Regulations.TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12
Regulation-62: Procedure for prosecution for Theft of Electricity:-
(1) The prosecution for theft of electricity under section 135 of the Act shall be initiated only in the cases where dishonest intention is evident from the relevant facts, records and other evidence of the case.
(2) In case sufficient evidence is found to establish theft of electricity, the Authorized officer under sub-section (2) of Section 135 of the Act shall seize and seal all material evidence including wires/cables, meter, service line etc., from the premises under a seizure Memo.
(3) The supply of the consumer shall be disconnected immediately on detection of theft only by such officer of the Licensee or supplier as authorised for the purpose by the Commission, under sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of the Act:
Provided that such officer shall lodge a complaint in writing in Police Station having jurisdiction over the site of occurrence of the offence within twenty four hours from time of such disconnection:
Provided further that such officer shall also send to the consumer a copy of complaint lodged in Police Station, copy of speaking order under Regulation 64 along with a copy of videography of inspection within 2 (two) days of such disconnection.
(4) No case for theft shall be booked only on account of missing of the seals on the meter or on account of breakage of glass window of the meter, unless dishonest intention is corroborated TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12 by consumption pattern of consumer or any other evidence.
(5) Interference with the accurate registration of energy consumed by resorting to external methods involving remote control, high voltage injection etc., committed by the consumer or his employee or any other person acting on his behalf, shall also constitute theft of electricity which may be established by analysis of metering data and by testing of the meter in an accredited laboratory notified by the Commission or by the agency authorized by the Commission in this regard.
Prosecution Evidence Testimonies of raiding party members :-
5. PW-2 deposed that on 23.12.2011, he was posted as Manager in the Enforcement Department of the Tata Power-DDL. On that day, in the morning hours, he along with Sh. Ashutosh Tyagi, the then Manager, Sh. Praveen Kumar, the then Junior Officer, the photographer Sonu from M/s Dev Photo Magic and other zonal staff members conducted raid at the agriculture field of the accused at Village Qutubgarh. At the time of inspection, no meter was found installed at the site and the direct theft of the electricity was being committed by illegal tapping from NDPL/Tata Power-DDL Lt Main switch of Ram Swaroop Transformer. At the time of inspection, labour were present at the spot, who stated that Jaipal is the user of the electricity. The connected load was found to be 7.460 KW, which was being used for the agriculture purposes. At the time of inspection, they prepared the inspection report. The same is Ex. PW-2/1, bearing his signature at Point-A. The inspection report was tried to be TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12 served upon the labour who was present at the site, however, they refused to sign the same. The illegal wire i.e. black colour 3 core cable having length 30 meters approx. was removed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/2. The seizure memo was tried to be served upon the labour who was present at the site, however, they refused to sign and accept the same. The photographs of the spot were taken and are placed on record as Ex. PW-2/A1 to Ex. PW-2/A12. He deposed that the photographs clearly depict that the theft of electricity was being committed at the spot at the time of the inspection. He further deposed that on 16.11.2015, his statement was recorded by the IO.
He deposed that on 16.12.2015, he along with Shri Ashutosh Tyagi and Shri Praveen Kumar and IO went to the spot. In the same agriculture field, they met one Raj Singh @ Doki s/o Sh. Deep Chand R/o Village Qutubgarh, who informed them that he was giving water in the agriculture field and he also informed that the inspected agriculture field belonged to Manoj @ Tunda (present accused) and not to the Jaipal s/o Sh. Mauji Ram. He informed that the present accused Manoj is the resident of village Qutubgarh. He also prepared the site plan at his instance. During his testimony, he identified the case property produced by the Store-Keeper from Tata Power-DDL in a jute bag in an unsealed condition. The case property is black colour 3 core cable having length 30 meters approx. The case property was exhibited as Ex. P-1.
In his cross-examination, he stated that in the said raid, there was no officer of Land Revenue Department to identify the agriculture field.
6. PW-4 Sh. Praveen Kumar was also the member of the inspecting TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12 team. He deposed that on 23.12.2011, he was posed as Junior Officer in the Corporate Enforcement Group of the complainant company. On that day, he along with Sh. V.K. Sharma, the then Manager, Sh. Ashutosh Tyagi, then Manager, along-with photographer Sonu from M/s Dev Photo Magic with zonal staff and security force had inspected the agriculture fields at village Qutubgarh. At the time of inspection, the direct theft of electricity was being committed from NDPL LT network (LT Main Switch of Ram Swaroop Wala Transformer) through illegal 3 core black cable. At the time of inspection, the representative of the user was present at the spot who stated that the agriculture field belonged to one Jai Pal. At the time of inspection, a load of 7.460 KW was found connected for agriculture purposes. They prepared the inspection report at the site. The same is Ex. PW-2/1. Thereafter, they seized the material i.e. illegal 3 core black colour cable having length 30 meters approx vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/2. He further deposed that the IO recorded their statements in this case.
On 16.12.2015, they re-visited the site to show the same to the IO for preparation of the site plan. At the time of revisit, they found that direct theft of electricity was again being committed at the same spot. At the time of revisit, one person namely Raj Singh was found present in the agriculture field. He was working there. He told that the agriculture field belonged to the accused Manoj and not to Jai Pal. IO prepared the site plan on the same day. At the time of revisit, Sh. Ashutosh Tyagi and Sh. V.K. Sharma were also with them. They also booked another case of direct theft of electricity against the accused on that day. He identified the case property as Ex. P-1.
TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12He also deposed in his cross-examination that no Revenue Officer/Patwari was present at the spot to ascertain that the agriculture field belonged to accused Manoj @ Tunda. He further deposed that they did not ascertain the Khasra number or Killa number in which the said Ram Swaroop Wala Transformer was installed or the Killa number or khasra number of the agriculture field of tube-well which was being run on the stolen electricity.
Testimony of the Independent Witness:-
7. PW-6 deposed that he did not know anything about the case. The police had not made any enquiry from him. He had not met any TPDDL officials.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State cross-examined him. In his cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP, he deposed that he was the labourer. He was working on daily wages. He had never worked in the agriculture field of the present accused. He denied that on 16.12.2015, he was watering the agriculture field of the accused and at that time, IO/HC Man Mohan Singh and raiding party members of Tata Power-DDL came there and he informed them that the agriculture field belonged to the accused. He denied the suggestion that they prepared the site plan at his instance and the same bears his thumb impression. He denied the suggestion that the police recorded his statement which is Ex. PW-6/X. The statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C i.e. Ex. PW-6/X was recorded. The statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was read over to him, however, he denied the same.
TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12Testimony of the Investigating Officer:-
8. PW-5 ASI Man Mohan Singh deposed that in July 2015, he was posted at PS-Kanjhawala. The investigation of the present case was marked to him by SHO PS-Kanjhawala. During investigation, he went to the site in question and prepared the rough site plan i.e. Ex. PW-5/X. The witness refreshed his memory by going through the case file and further deposed that on 11.12.2015, he went to the site in question, however, the same was not matching with the photographs of the case. So, he served the notice to the raiding team on the same day for identifying the site in question. Thereafter, the inspecting team members went along-with him to inspect the site. He deposed that the said site belonged to the present accused Manoj. He recorded the statement of the PW namely Raj Singh, who was watering the agriculture fields of the accused. He also met one Surjeet and Sh. Prakash, who were present there and recorded their statements on that day. Re-inspection report was also prepared by the raiding team i.e. Ex. PW-5/B. Thereafter, he asked the accused to join the investigation. He also collected the copy of Khatoni from the office of SDM office i.e. Ex. PW-5/C. Thereafter, he prepared the charge-sheet.
Statement of Accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C
9. The accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C stated that all the proceedings were conducted by the TPDDL officials in their office and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was submitted that no such raid was ever conducted on his agriculture field. It was further submitted that there has been no tube well in his agriculture field.TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12
Court's Observations:-
10. The testimonies of the witnesses, who participated in the inspection dated 23.12.2011, show that the agriculture fields of village Qutabgarh were inspected and direct theft of electricity was found being committed to run the tube-well of one of the field. Some photographs showing a cable going from the transformer to the agriculture field are also on record. However, the issue for consideration is that whether the inspected agriculture field belonged to the present accused or not?
Identification of agriculture field:-
11. The testimonies of PWs show that when they raided the agriculture field, they were not aware about the owner/user of that field.
They came to know about the name of the owner from the labourer present there. They came to know that one Jaipal was the user of that field. So, the inspection report was drawn, showing Jaipal as the offender. The police complaint was also made against Jaipal. Later-on, they again visited the agriculture field with the IO on 16.12.2015 i.e. after four years and came to know that the agriculture field belonged to the present accused Manoj on the basis of the statement of one labourer, who has been examined as a witness i.e. PW-6. Another re-inspection memo i.e. Ex. PW-5/B was prepared, wherein it was noted that the actual user of the said agriculture field was the present accused, instead of the person, who had been named in the complaint.
During investigation, the IO got the khatoni i.e. Ex. PW-5/C of the agriculture field, however, how the khatoni is connected to the agriculture field of the accused, is not known. Even the khasra number of TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12 the agriculture field, where the inspection was carried out, was not mentioned in either of the inspection reports dated 23.12.2011 and 16.12.2015 respectively. The first inspection was carried out on 23.12.2011. The second re-inspection was carried out on 16.12.2015. The re-inspection i.e. Ex. PW-1/5 does not contain the khasra number of the field, where the inspection as well as re-inspection were carried out. The labourer, who named the accused, was examined as PW-6 and he did not support the case of the prosecution. Without knowing the khasra number of the agriculture field, how the complainant can show that the inspection was carried out in the field of the accused. The prosecution has only been able to prove the following facts:-
(a) Inspection in the agriculture field; and
(b) A wire used in stealing the electricity; and
(c) Existence of tube-well in the agriculture field There is nothing on record to connect the present accused with the inspected agriculture field. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the accused stands acquitted for offence u/s 135 Electricity Act.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (RAJESH MALIK)
today i.e. on 14.12.2021 ASJ(Electricity)/Distt. North-West
Rohini Courts, Delhi
TPDDL Vs Manoj @ Tunda Page 12 of 12