Delhi High Court - Orders
Chandan Yadav vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 15 March, 2023
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3190/2021
CHANDAN YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vaibhav Sinha, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the
State.
Mr.Sharique Hussain, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 15.03.2023
1. This petition is filed for quashing of summoning order dated 19.03.2021 in CC No.381/2021 passed by learned ASJ, Special Electricity Court, Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent appear and refers to a speaking order dated 24.12.2020 passed by department which became the basis of complaint. The speaking order is read as under :
The case has been examined and found that the meter no.27229526 was installed on 09.06.2018. As per energy Meter Test/Analysis report, meter terminal block found abnormal burnt. Y-phase and B-phase terminal thimbles found missing, hologram seals found brunt, meter display found not ok, meter serial no. could not be identified. Consumption records for the period 29.08.2019 to 09.09.2020 shows an average recorded consumption of 83 units per day which has been found to be only 8.36% of the assessed consumption. Meter terminal block found abnormal burnt and consumption of the meter has remained low, hence it is evident that the meter was intentionally burnt to destroy the evidence of meter tampering. The visual observation of burnt meter has been analyzed in laboratory Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:18.03.2023 14:55 and pattern of burning of meter Indicates that meter was deliberately burnt to get rid of tampered element. In addition, meter LCD was found not ok Consumption has increased drastically after meter replacement Consumer stated during Personal hearing that no new machinery is added in the factory before and after meter replacement where as Consumption has increased drastically from 2567 Units/Month (29.08.2019 10 27.12.2019) to 5145 Units/ Months (10.09.2020 to 22.12.2020) after meter replacement. Consumption has almost doubled after meter replacement Consumer has stated during Personal hearing that factory works from 10am to 6 pm whereas available MRD shows it has continuous shift. Thus, clear evidence of theft of electricity has been detected. Thus, it is the responsibility of the consumer to keep the meter in safe custody. Consumer has been beneficiary of the tampered meter.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner if the consumption pattern for the last one year is reasonably uniform and is not less than 75% of the assessed consumption, no further proceedings shall be taken against the petitioner herein of suspected theft.
4. However, the speaking order reveals the consumption had just doubled after the meters were changed.
5. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner can be tried when during trial and cannot be looked into at this stage, hence there is no fault in the summoning order.
6. The petition stands dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
MARCH 15, 2023 VLD Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:18.03.2023 14:55