Delhi District Court
Bses Yamuna Power Limited vs Allauddin on 19 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.L MEENA: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE, ELECTRICITY COURT NO.02,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Complaint case No. 325700/2016
Police Station : Chandni Mahal
CNR No. DLCT01-003536-2016
In the matter of:
B.S.E.S. YAMUNA POWER LIMITED
Regd. Office at:
Shakti Kiran Building,
Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.
Acting through its Authorized officer
Sh. Jitender Shankar.
.....COMPLAINANT
Allauddin
S/o Sh. Shabhuddin
R/o H.No. 2399, 1st Floor,
Kucha Mir-H, Bazar Chitli Quabar,
Delhi-110006. .......... ACCUSED
Date of Institution : 08.02.2016
Date of Reserving judgment : 11.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 19.09.2025
Final Order : Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. The complainant company is a limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 (to be referred as "company" hereinafter) having its registered office at Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092. The present case was filed through Sh. Jitender Shankar authorized representative.
CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 1 of 212. Briefly stated, as per complaint on 21.12.2015, as per directions of the GM (Enforcement), a Joint Inspection Team comprising of Shri Chandeep Vohra, Manager, Enforcement, Shri Lalit, DET, Shri R.Kumar, Technician of the Complainant Company along with Lady Guard Ms. Ruby inspected the premises i.e. H.No. 2399, 1st floor, Kucha Mir-H, Bazar Chitli Quabar, Delhi (hereinafter referred as inspected premises). During the course of inspection, user/accused Allauddin was found indulged in the direct theft of electricity through illegal wire/cable by tapping S/L of the meter inside the wall, further, connected to the internal wiring of the premises. One meter no.11510737 was installed for 1st Floor and 2nd floor of the premises and another meter no. 14046534 was found installed at the premises for ground floor, however, both the aforesaid meters were found disconnected, but the supply was found running illegally through direct theft of electricity. Further, 3 rd floor of the premises was found locked. The entire connected load was running through illegally connected/inserted wires. In view of the aforesaid irregularity, the illegal wires used by the accused for conducting direct theft of electricity were removed and seized by the joint team vide seizure memo dated 21.12.2015. It is further stated that the meter at site could not be seized due to resistance from the user at site. Further, at that time of inspection, connected load running on direct theft supply was found at 16.633 KW/DX/DT i.e. for Domestic purposes. It is further stated that the inspection team also prepared Enforcement inspection report (also including/consisting of meter details report and load report) as well as seizure memo at site thereby CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 2 of 21 seizing the illegal tapping material/wire etc. at site. It is further stated that the various reports prepared at site were also offered to the user, at site, who refused to receive, sign and acknowledge the same and even did not allow the team members to paste the same at site. The necessary possible videography of the premises and connected load and irregularities found was also done by Shri Akash, Videographer from M/s Arora Photo Studio in the presence of the user with the help of Digital Camera at site, however, complete videography could not be done due to resistance created by the user at site. It is further stated that the aforesaid illegal act, the accused was found to be causing wrongful loss to the complainant company and wrongful gain to himself and was thus acting dishonestly. It is further stated that since it was a case of direct theft of electricity, a theft bill as per the DERC regulations and tariff order was raised by the complainant company for a sum of Rs. 4,34,732.00 with due date as 07th January, 2016 but the accused has failed and neglected to make the payment of theft bill amount. It is further stated that since accused has dishonestly abstracted the energy by way of direct theft of electricity and thus he is liable to be punished in view of section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 and besides being liable for the civil liability under section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. After recording the pre-summoning evidence of the company, accused was summoned to face trial for the offence under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide order dated 07.12.2021.
4. A notice under section 251 Cr.PC for the offence CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 3 of 21 punishable under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, was framed against the accused on 28.08.2023, through which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Complainant in support of its case examined three witnesses namely Sh.Chandeep Vohra (Senior Manager), Sh. Jitender Shanker, (AR/Asst. Vice President, Legal & Enforcement) and Sh. Prahlad Singh Diwan (Supervisor M/s Arora Photo Studio). During the examination of complainant witnesses, documents i.e. Inspection Report i.e. Ex.CW2/A, Load Report i.e. Ex.CW2/B, Seizure memo i.e. Ex.CW2/C, Theft bill i.e. Ex.CW2/D, Postal receipt is Ex.CW2/E, CD i.e. Ex.CW2/D and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act i.e. Ex.CW3/A and case property i.e. two number of single core black colour wire of 6mm square i.e. Ex.P-1 were also tendered in the evidence.
6. On 05.06.2025, accused was examined under section 351 of BNSS r/w Section 316 of BNSS, 2023 and his statement was recorded. During the said examination, accused has denied the allegations of theft of electricity. He also stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Anil Sharma, learned Counsel for the complainant company and Sh. Kshitiz Mahipal, learned counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully.
8. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of all the complainant witnesses, it is submitted by counsel for the complainant company that it has been proved by the testimony of complainant's witnesses that on 22.12.2015 a raid was conducted CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 4 of 21 by the Enforcement department of the complainant company at the address of the accused and found that there was direct theft of electricity by tapping the service line of electricity meter inside the wall which was plastered and connected to the internal circuit through MCB underground fitting. It has also been proved that two meters bearing no. 11510737 (for first and second floor) and 14046534 (for ground floor) were installed at the inspected premises and when the team disconnected the outgoing supply of the said meters and found that electricity at first and second floor was running illegally. It is further submitted that representative of the accused namely Furkan (son of the accused) was found at the inspected premises and his presence is also shown in the videography Ex.CW2/D. It is further submitted that illegal material i.e. Ex.P-1 used for the theft of electricity was produced during the trial of the case and same was identified by the witness. It is further submitted that Aakash, Videographer from M/s Arora Photo Studio was also present at the inspected premises along with the raiding team and he did the videography of the inspected premises. It has also been proved by the Prahlad Singh Diwan that he received the camera containing the videography of the inspected premises from aforesaid videogapher namely Aakash, thereafter he made a CD by using the computer system provided to him by BYPL and also issued the certificate 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The said CD and certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act are already i.e. Ex.PW2/D and PW3/A respectively. It is further submitted that complainant witnesses have proved that accused was indulged in the direct theft of electricity and he did not pay the outstanding CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 5 of 21 dues of the electricity to the complainant company despite time given to him. It is prayed that accused may be convicted u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and he also be punished as per law.
9. On the contra, counsel for accused has vehemently opposed the arguments of counsel for the complainant company and submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted by the counsel for the accused that accused was having the electricity meter at the inspected premises and he did not commit the theft of electricity. If the accused would have committed the theft of electricity then electricity of the accused must have been disconnected in view of the provisions of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred as said Regulations). In the present case there was no disconnection of electricity of the accused particularly on the date of alleged inspection. Rather accused has been using the electricity at his premise through the said meter for a long time even before or after the alleged inspection. Counsel for the accused in support of his arguments has drawn the attention of the Court on the provisions of said Regulations, particularly 52, 53 and 54 and Section 135 (1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is further submitted that the report must be signed by authorized officer and each member of the inspection team and same must be handed over to the consumer or his/her representative at site under proper receipt in view of 52 (IX) of the said Regulations. In the present case, there is no signature of all members on the inspection report Ex.CW2/A which shows that no inspection was conducted at the inspected premises as per said Regulations. It is CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 6 of 21 further submitted that it is the case of complainant company that representative of the accused namely Furkan created resistance to the officials of the complainant company while pasting the documents at the wall of the inspected premises but no notice under Section 163 of the Electricity Act was given to the said representative which also creates doubt over the alleged raid. Moreover, no mode of theft has been shown in the present case. Further, no public person was joined in the alleged raid of theft of electricity which also creates doubt over the complainant's case. It is further submitted that complainant company has failed to prove the alleged theft of electricity, therefore, accused be acquitted.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
11. Before dealing the submissions of the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003:-
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 CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 7 of 21 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:
12. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined three witnesses.
13. PW-1 Sh. Chandeep Vohra, Senior Manager has deposed that on 21.12.2015 at about 05.00 pm, he along with Sh. Lalit (DET), Raj Kumar (Lineman) and Sh. Akash (videographer of M/s Arora Photo Studio) inspected the premises no. 2399, 1st floor, Kucha Meer Bazar, Chitli Kabar, Delhi-06. He further deposed that at the time of inspection, user Allauddin was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by tapping the service line of the electricity meter inside the wall which was plastered and connected to the internal circuit through MCB under ground CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 8 of 21 fitting. He also deposed that there were two electricity meter bearing no.11510737 (for 1st and 2nd floor) and 14046534 (for ground floor) were installed at the inspected premises. It is further deposed that during course of inspection, they disconnected the outgoing supply of the meter and found that the electricity at 1st and 2nd floor was running illegally despite disconnection of the output supply of the meters. He further deposed that when they thoroughly checked and found that accused was stealing the electricity by tapping service line of the meter which was plastered inside the wall and connected to the internal circuit through two single core black colour cable to the MCB and internal circuit. At the time of inspection, Furkan met at site and stated that premises belongs to Allauddin who is the registered consumer as well as the user. He further deposed that Furkan did not allow them to break the wall to seize the illegal material. He also deposed that at the time of inspection, the videography was done by Mr. Akash of M/s Arora Photo Studio and the connected load 16.633 KW for domestic purpose was assessed at the time of inspection and was written in load report. It is further deposed that the illegal material two numbers of single core black colour copper wire of size 6mm having length ½ meter was seized and sealed by him at spot which was used to commit the direct theft of electricity and the inspection report Ex.CW2/A bears his signature at point A was prepared at site. He also identified the signature of Lalit and Raj Kumar at point B and C, who signed the documents in his presence. He also deposed that the load report is already Ex.CW2/B and the said witness has also identified the signature of Lalit and Raj Kumar CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 9 of 21 at point B and C, who signed the documents in his presence. He further deposed that the seizure memo is already Ex.CW2/C and he also identify the signature of Lalit and Raj Kumar at point B and C, who signed the documents in his presence. The CD is Ex.CW2/D and 65B certificate were already mark as Mark-A. He further deposed that all these documents were offered to the representative of the user at site but he refused to accept the same. He further deposed that Furkan was present at site and he did not allow them to paste the documents on wall of the inspected premises. Later on these documents were sent to the accused through Speed post and copy of postal receipt is already Ex.CW2/E. He also identified the case property i.e. two number of single core black colour wire of 6mm square having length of ½ meter. Videography Ex.CW2/D was also played during the trial of the case particularly before the witness PW-1 and he identified the alleged tapping, household articles, presence of one Furkan at site, representative of the accused.
14. PW-2 Sh. Jitender Shanker, AR/Asst. Vice President, Legal & Enforcement has deposed that on 08.02.2016, he filed the present complaint case against Allauddin and this complaint was filed on the basis of GPA provided to him by the complainant company, which is Ex.CW1/B, Inspection report (Ex.CW2/A), Load report Ex.CW2/B, Seizure Memo Ex.CW2/C, theft bill i.e. Ex. CW2/D, CD and 65 B certificate i.e. Mark-A (Colly) and POD of postal department (Ex.CW2/E) and the complaint Ex.CW1/A also bears his signature at point A. He also filed his fresh GPA dated 01.09.2022 which is Ex.PW2/A (OSR).
CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 10 of 2115. PW-3 Sh. Prahlad Singh Diwan, Supervisor has deposed that on 21.12.2015 the videographer namely Aakash went to the premises bearing no. 2399, 1st floor, Kucha Mir, H-Bazar, Chitli Qabar, Delhi along with BSES inspection team around 06.30 pm and on the same day, he handed over him the camera in which he did the videography of the abovementioned premises at the time of inspection. He also deposed that from this camera, he made a CD by using the computer system provided to him by BYPL in their office and after preparation of CD, he made a 65-B Certificate Ex.CW3/A and the said CD of the videography and 65 B certificate were handed over to team leader Chandeep Vohra on the same day. Sh. Akash videographer has left the service of M/s Arora Photo Studio.
16. In the light of notice framed against the accused and the arguments advanced before the Court, the point for determination in the present case is as:- Whether the accused has committed offence of theft of electricity, punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, on 21.12.2015?
17. It has been held in the catena of cases, that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused in case of direct theft of electricity, the following ingredients needs to be proved. (A) Identity of the accused.
(B) Identity of the premises in question.
(C) Connection of the accused with the premises in question. (D)The factum of the accused indulging in direct theft of electricity by illegal means.
18. As far as identity of the accused is concerned, it is categorically deposed by the prosecution witness particularly by CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 11 of 21 PW-1 that on 21.12.2015 the inspection was conducted on 21.12.2015 at about 05.00 pm at the premise no.2399, 1st floor, Kucha Meer Bazar, Chitli Qabar, Delhi-110006 and accused was found indulged in the direct theft of electricity by tapping the service line of the electricity meter inside the wall which was plastered and connected to the internal circuit. It is further deposed by the PW-1 that at the time of inspection, Furkan was found at the site and stated that premises belongs to Allauddin who is registered consumer as well as user. During the examination of PW-1, CD Ex.PW2/D was played and presence of Furkan, representative of the accused was shown in the videography. Furthermore, PW-3 Sh. Prahlad Singh Diwan appeared as a witness on behalf of the complainant company to prove the CD as well as certificate u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act. He deposed that on 21.12.2015 videographer namely Aakash went to the inspected premise along with the BSES inspection team. He further stated that he after receiving the said camera from said videographer prepared the CD Ex.CW2/D and also made a certificate issued u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act which is Ex.CW3/A. Perusal of the said testimony of PW-1 and PW-3, it is apparent that person namely Furkan, representative of the accused was found at the inspected premises and he stated that Allauddin is the registered consumer as well as the user of the inspected premises. It is worth to be noted here that accused has also admitted in his examination u/s 351 of BNSS r/w 316 BNSS, 2023 that Furkan is his son and inspected premises belongs to him. In light of the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 and admission of accused in his examination u/s 351 of BNSS r/w CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 12 of 21 316 BNSS, 2023, it is apparent that there is no dispute of the identity of the accused in the present case.
19. As far as the identity of the premises in question and the connection of the accused with said premises is concerned, it is relevant to note here that summon was duly served upon the accused at the inspected premises on 18.04.2022. Further, perusal of the notice framed u/s 251 Cr.P.C. qua the accused, bail bond, statement recorded u/s 351 of BNSS r/w 316 BNSS, 2023, I find that accused has mentioned his address H.No. 2399, 1 st Floor, Kucha Meer Hasin Bazar, Chitli Qabar, Delhi-110006 i.e. inspected premises. Moreover, accused admitted in his examination u/s 351 of BNSS r/w 316 BNSS, 2023 with this effect that inspected premises belongs to him. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that there is no dispute of the identity of the inspected premises.
20. As far as the factum of commission of theft is concerned, it was categorically deposed by PW-1 that on 21.12.2015 at about 05.00 pm, he along with Sh. Lalit (DET), Sh. Raj Kumar (Lineman ) and Sh. Aakash (Videographer from M/s Arora Photo Studio) inspected the premises bearing no. H.No. 2399, 1 st Floor, Kucha Meer Bazar, Chitli Qabar, Delhi-110006. At the time of inspection, user Allauddin was found indulged in the direct theft of electricity by tapping the service line of the electricity meter inside the wall which was plastered and connected to the internal circuit through MCB underground fitting. He further deposed that there were two electricity meter bearing no. 11510737 (for 1st and 2nd floor) and 14046534 (for ground floor) were installed at the inspected premises. He also deposed that during the course of CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 13 of 21 inspection, they disconnected the outgoing supply of the meter and found that electricity at 1st and 2nd floor was running illegally despite disconnection of outgoing supply of the meter. They further found that the theft of the electricity was being committed by the accused through two single core black colour to the MCB and internal circuit. He further deposed that they prepared inspection report, load report and seizure memo which are Ex.CW2/A, Ex.CW2/B and Ex.CW2/C respectively. The illegal material i.e. two number of single core black colour wire of size 6mm square was produced and same was identified by PW-1.
21. The first and foremost argument of the counsel for the accused is that the raid was conducted without any written instructions from the authorized person of the complainant company, therefore, the said raid is illegal.
21.1 On the contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the complainant company that the Govt. of NCT had issued a notification dated 2nd September, 2007, whereby the officer of rank of Assistant Manager and the above is designated as authorized officer for the inspection. In the present case, PW-1 Sh. Chandeep Vohra was Assistant Manager at the time of inspection, therefore, he was authorized person to conduct the raid at the inspected premises as per notification dated 2nd September, 2007. Copy of the said notification is also shown to the Court.
21.2 After having gone through the submissions of both the parties and perusal of record, I find that there is a force in the submissions of the counsel for the complainant company. As per the testimony of PW-1 and inspection report Ex.CW2/A, it is CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 14 of 21 apparent that PW-1 Sh. Chandeep Vohra was the team leader as well as Assistant Manager at the time of inspection, therefore, it is proved that Sh.Chandeep Vohra was the authorized person to conduct the raid at the inspected premises on 21.12.2015 as per notification dated 2nd September, 2007.
22. Now coming on the second argument of the counsel for the accused is that it is a rule of the DERC Supply Code, 2007 that in case sufficient evidence is found to establish direct theft of electricity, then Licensee shall disconnect the supply and seize all the material evidence including wires/cables, meter, service line etc. from the premises and within two days from the date of inspection, file a case against the consumer in the designated Special Court as per provision of Section 135 of the Act. Counsel for the accused in support of his arguments has drawn the attention of the court on Rule 52 of the DERC Supply Code, 2007. It is further submitted by the counsel for the accused that in the present case neither supply of the electricity of the accused got disconnected nor meter was removed by the alleged raiding team which indicates that no raid was conducted at the house of the accused. Even accused is receiving the supply of the electricity from same meter. In view of aforesaid fact, the alleged raid was in violation of Rule 52 of the DERC Supply Code 2007. 22.1 On the contra, counsel for the complainant company has vehemently opposed the said argument of the counsel for the accused stating that since person namely Furkan, representative of the accused had neither allowed to break the wall to seize the illegal material nor allowed the raiding team to paste the documents on wall of the inspected premises. Therefore, it was CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 15 of 21 not feasible to seize the entire illegal material including removing the meter. It is further submitted that aforesaid fact regarding resistance shown by the representative of the accused is also reiterated by the PW-1 in the course of cross examination. Moreover, the provisions of the DERC Supply Code, 2007 are not mandatory.
22.2 After having gone through the submissions advanced by both the parties and perusal of record, I find that it would be appropriate to refer the relevant part of Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 regarding disconnection of supply of the electricity and filing of complaint in the police station.
Section 135 (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity:
Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorised for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity:
Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offfence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty four hour from the time of such disconnect. Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 16 of 21 amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment;
22.3 Bare perusal of the said provision of the Electricity Act, it is apparent that licensee or supplier of the electricity has the discretion to disconnect the supply of electricity particularly after detection of theft of electricity. Moreover, in the present case, PW-1 has categorically deposed that Furkan representative of the accused restricted the raiding team to break the wall and seize the meter. In view of the said deposition, it is apparent that it was not feasible for the raiding team to seize the illegal meter particularly when the resistance was shown by the representative of accused.
23. Now coming on the next argument of the counsel for the accused is that as per 52 (IX) of the said Regulations that report must be signed by authorized officer and each member of the inspection team and same must be handed over to the consumer or his/her representative at site under proper receipt. In the present case, there is no signature of all members on the inspection report Ex.CW2/A which shows that no inspection was conducted at the inspected premises.
24. On the contra, counsel for the complainant company has vehemently opposed the said arguments stating that the raiding member of the team were Chandeep Vohra (PW-1), Lalit (DET) and Raj Kumar (lineman) and there is signature of all three CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 17 of 21 members on the inspection report Ex.CW2/A particularly at point A, B and C, therefore, there was no violation of any rule of DERC Supply Code 2007. Moreover, the said team also offered to the representative of the accused to receive the reports prepared at site but he refused to receive the same.
25. After having gone through the submissions of both the parties, I find that there is force in the submissions of the counsel for the complainant company. Bare perusal of the inspection report Ex.CW2/A, I find that there is a signature of all three raiding team members namely Chandeep Vohra (PW-1), Lalit (DET) and Raj Kumar (lineman) in the said inspection report at point A, B and C respectively.
26. Now coming on the next argument of the counsel for the accused is that it is the case of complainant company that representative of the accused namely Furkan created resistance to the officials of the complainant company while pasting the documents at the wall of the inspected premises but no notice under Section 163 of the Electricity Act was given to the said representative which also creates doubt over the alleged raid.
26.1 On the contra, the counsel for the complainant company has opposed the said argument stating that provision u/s 163 of the Electricity Act is not mandatory provisions rather its a discretionary power of the complainant company to give notice to the occupant of the inspected premises for the purpose mentioned in the said provision.
26.2 After having gone through the submissions advanced by the parties and provisions of Section 163 of the Electricity Act, I find that the said provision is a discretionary in nature. No CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 18 of 21 compliance of the said provision by the complainant company does not create doubt over the case of the complainant company.
27. Now coming on the other argument of the counsel for the accused that there is no independent witness in the present case regarding theft of electricity. In the present case, there is a CCTV footage showing the raid at the inspected premises. The absence of independent public witness does not demolish the case. While association of public witness is desirable where practicable, the law is well settled that non joining of public witness does not ipso facto vitiate proceedings.
28. Now coming on the other arguments of the counsel for the accused that since accused was not present at the inspected premises and there is no material on record suggesting that Furkan was authorized representative of the accused, therefore, complainant company has failed to prove the connection of the accused with the inspected premises.
28.1 On the contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the accused that Furkan was a representative of the accused at the inspected premises on the day of inspection and moreover, accused has also admitted in his statement recorded u/s 351 of BNS r/w 316 BNSS, 2023 that Furkan is son and inspected property belongs to him, therefore, it is proved that inspected premises belongs to the accused and Furkan was his son who was present at the time of inspection.
28.2 After having gone through the submission of both the paries and perusal of report, I find that accused himself admitted in his examination u/s 351 BNSS r/w 316 BNSS, 2023 that inspected premises belongs to him and Furkan is his son. Further, CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 19 of 21 in the bail bond, the name of the surety is Furkan of the present accused. Even Furkan is also shown in the CCTV footage Ex.CW2/B. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding identity of the accused with the inspected premises.
29. It is apparent that presumption as per third proviso to section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 arose in this case. The said proviso reads as hereunder:-
"....Provided also that if it is provided 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."
29.1 In the light of the aforesaid provisions, I find that the complainant company has discharged its onus of proving the abstraction of electricity by examining members of inspection team, particularly, PW-1 and by producing the illegal wires through which electricity was being abstracted, and proving the mode of abstraction. Once this onus was discharged, the onus was on the accused to show that he was not indulged in abstraction or theft of electricity. In the present case, the accused could not disprove the factum of his connection with the premises in question, as his representative namely Furkan is shown in the videography made at the time of inspection. Moreover, his address finds mentioned in the bail bond furnished by him and the same has also been recorded at the time of framing of notice and recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC.
30. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that the complainant company has successfully CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 20 of 21 proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt from the testimonies of PWs coupled with Inspection Report, Connected Load Report, Seizure Memo and Videography of the inspected premises that electricity was being used for domestic purpose by the accused without having any valid source of electricity and connected load was found to be 16.633 KW for Domestic purposes. Hence, the accused Allauddin is hereby found to be guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. Digitally RAM signed by RAM LAL MEENA ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN LAL Date:
2025.09.19 MEENA 14:32:28 +0530 COURT ON 19.09.2025 (R.L. Meena) ASJ/Special Judge, Electricity Court No.02, Central Tis Hazari/Delhi/19.09.2025 CC No. 325700/2016 BSES -YPL Vs. Allauddin Page 21 of 21