Delhi District Court
State (Bses) vs Bobby Khurana on 21 April, 2026
SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHISH RASTOGI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 05
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
SC No. 13/2024
FIR No. 310/2021
Under Section 135/150 Electricity Act
PS Welcome
State
versus
Bobby Khurana
S/o Sh. Raju Khurana
R/o H.No.J-16, Gali No.6,
Vijay Colony, Shastri Park, Delhi
.... Accused
Date of institution 04.01.2024
Arguments heard on 25.03.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 21.04.2026
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Bobby Khurana is facing trial upon the allegations that Shabbo (user/tenant, since expired) was indulged in theft of electricity in the inspected premises and accused Bobby Khurana who was found to be owner of the inspected premises, is stated to have abetted said Shabbo to commit theft of electricity and thereby, committed an offence punishable under 135 r/w Section Judgment 1 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana 150 of Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Brief Facts
2. On 24.03.2021, at about 1.00 pm, an inspection was conducted by the inspection team of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (hereinafter referred as complainant company) headed by Sh. N. Neela Kannan (DGM) in the residential premises of accused i.e. 1/11325, Ground Floor, Gali No.6, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-110032. The inspection team was comprised of Sh. N. Neela Kannan (DGM), Sh. Pawan Tomar (DET), Sh. Shiv Kumar (Lineman), Sh. Deepak (Videographer) and one lady guard namely Ms. Reeta.
3. At the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at the inspected premises and one lady was present, who disclosed her name as Shabbo and claimed herself to be tenant of the accused Bobby Khurana, was found indulged in theft of electricity with the help of PVC multi-stand aluminium cable which were found connected from BSES YPL Pole No.GTR-I-438.
4. At the time of inspection, total connected load was found to be 3.076 KW which was being used for domestic purposes. Videographer Sh. Deepak captured videography of inspection proceeding. Inspection Report, Load Report and Seizure Memo were prepared at the spot.
5. On the basis of connected load, applicable tariff and Judgment 2 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana following the guidelines of DERC, the complainant company assessed the demand to the tune of Rs.51,349/- Accordingly, a theft bill was raised and sent to the accused persons but he did not make payment of the theft bill.
6. On failure to pay the theft bill amount, complainant company through its Authorized Officer lodged a complaint U/s 135 & 150 Electricity Act with SHO, PS Welcome for registration of FIR against the accused.
7. The basis of said complaint present FIR No.310/2021 was registered and investigation of the case was marked to HC Yogesh Kumar Bharti, IO of the case. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Shabbo (since expired) was in possession of the inspected premises at the time of inspection. It was further revealed that Shabbo (since expired) was residing and user of electricity in the inspected premises. After completion of investigation, IO filed the charge-sheet against the accused Bobby Khurana as well as accused Shabbo (now expired) U/s 135 of Electricity Act.
8. During the course of trial, accused Shabbo passed away and proceedings against her have been abated by vide order dated 30.07.2024.
Notice
9. On 30.07.2024, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C for commission of offence punishable under Section 135 r/w Section 150 of Judgment 3 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana the Act was given to accused Bobby Khurana. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
10.In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined following witnesses.
11. PW1 Sh. Deepak is the videographer who, on the instruction of team leader Sh. N. Neela Kannan/PW3, captured videography of the inspection proceedings. He proved the video contained in the CD as Ex.PW1/A and certificate U/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/B.
12. PW2 HC Yogesh Kumar Bhati is the IO of the case, who proved the FIR as Ex.PW2/A, site plan Ex.PW2/B and notice U/s 41A Cr.P.C to accused persons as Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D. He also proved interrogation reports as Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F and copy of Aadhar Card of the accused persons and receipt of new electricity connection in the name of accused Bobby Khurana as Ex.PW2/G. PW2 deposed that during investigation, it was revealed that Shabbo (since expired) was residing in the inspected premises as a tenant of accused Bobby Khurana. He bound down both the accused persons vide Pabandinama Ex.PW2/H and Ex.PW2/I.
13. PW3 Sh. N. Neela Kannan is the DGM of the Complainant Company who was heading the inspection team. He proved the inspection report as Ex.PW3/A, load report as Ex.PW3/B, seizure memo as Ex.PW3/C and theft bill as Judgment 4 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana Ex.PW3/D. He also proved the complaint lodged by him as Ex.PW3/E. Statement of Accused
14.All incriminating evidence which has come on record, were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all material allegations and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence and accordingly opportunity to lead defece evidence was closed and matter was posted for final arguments.
Arguments
15.Ld. Addl. PP assisted by AR of the complaint company submitted that tenant Shabbo (since expired) who was found to be user of electricity, was found indulged in direct theft of electricity. It is further deposed that no electricity meter was found installed for the inspected premises at the time of inspection. It is further submitted that accused Bobby Khurana was found to be owner of the inspected premises and his tenant namely Shabbo was found to be user of the electricity in the inspected premises. It is further submitted that despite knowing the fact that there was no electricity meter in the inspected premises, accused Bobby Khurana gave/let out the inspected premises to Shabbo and allowed/abetted his tenant/user Shabbo to commit direct theft of electricity and accused Bobby Khurana being owner of the inspected premises is Judgment 5 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana responsible for the said act. Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that prosecution has proved allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He also emphasized that inspection was conducted as per Rules and applicable Regulations. Thus, it is prayed that accused may be convicted.
Analysis
16.Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that accused has not committed any theft of electricity.
17.At the outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce the definition of 'consumer'. The relevant provision of Section 2 (15) of the Act is produced as under:-
"Consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;"
18.In this case, accused Bobby Khurana was found to be owner of the inspected premises and her tenant/co-accused Shabbo (since expired) was found to be user of electricity at the relevant time. Perusal of Section 2 (15) of the Act shows that both the user and the owner of the premises/registered consumer are covered under the definition of the 'consumer' and thus, accused Bobby Judgment 6 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana Khurana is liable for punishment if illegal abstraction of energy is found at the premises of accused. In this regard, this court is also supported with the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Lokesh Chandela vs State of NCT & Ors. (Crl. Appeal No.479/2011).
19.Before dealing with the factual aspects of the present case, it is deemed appropriate to firstly specify and discuss the relevant provisions of the Act which are required to be gone into for appropriate disposal of the case. The present case pertains to Section 135 r/w Section 150 of the Act. The provision of Sections 135 & 150 of the Electricity Act are reproduced as under:
Section 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 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:
Section 150. Abetment. - (1) Whoever abets an Judgment 7 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana offence punishable under this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. (2) Without prejudice to any penalty or fine which may be imposed or prosecution proceeding which may be initiated under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, if any officer or other employee of the Board or the licensee enters into or acquiesces in any agreement to do, abstains from doing, permits, conceals or connives at any act or thing whereby any theft of electricity is committed, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1) of section 135, sub-section (1) of section 136, section 137 and section 138, the license or certificate of competency or permit or such other authorization issued under the rules made or deemed to have been made under this Act to any person who acting as an electrical contractor, supervisor or worker abets the commission of an offence punishable under sub-section (1) of section 135, sub- section (1) of section 136, section 137, or section 138, on his conviction for such abetment, may also be cancelled by the licensing authority:
Provided that no order of such cancellation shall be made without giving such person an opportunity of being heard.
20. There is a presumption mentioned in the third proviso of Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which reads as follows:-
"Provided also that if it is proved 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.
21.Dishonest intention has not been defined in Electricity Act.
Judgment 8 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana
Section 24 IPC defines 'dishonestly' and holds that Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
22.As per prosecution case, at the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed in the inspected premises and Shabbo who was alleged to be tenant of accused, was found indulged in direct theft of electricity with the help of illegal two core black colour cable which was found connected from BSES YPL Pole No.GTR-I-438 and accused Bobby Khurana was found to be owner of the inspected premises. Accused Bobby Khurana being owner of inspected premises let/permitted/allowed the user/tenant Shabbo to commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, the onus was on the prosecution to prove these allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
23. Under Electricity Act' Regulations are framed by the Delhi Electricity Regularity Commission. Regulation 60 to 63 deals with theft of electricity. Regulation 60 empowers authorized Officer to inspect premises. Under Regulation 61 Authorized Officer makes an Inspection Report, Regulation 62 lays down procedure to report a case of theft and then under Regulation 63 there is assessment of theft bill.
24. Regulations 60-63 of DERC are as under:-
Theft of Electricity under Section 135 of the Act 60.
Judgment 9 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana
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.
61. Preparation of Report by Authorized officer: - (1) In the event of detection of theft of electricity, the Authorized officer shall prepare a detailed Report at site, in the manner as prescribed in the Commission's Orders. (2) All the material evidences such as tampered meter, tampered meter seal and artificial means used for illegal abstraction of energy and the documentary evidences etc., which are relevant to the case and found during the inspection, shall be seized under a seizure memo and sealed in the presence of the consumer or his authorized representative and be kept as a proof along with photography and video recording of the premises. (3) A detailed description of the material seized, including date, time and place and name & address of witnesses to the seizure shall be recorded on the exterior of the cover and signatures of all witnesses shall be affixed on the sealing points: Provided that if the witness refuses to sign, the same shall be recorded in the report and captured in the videography.
(4) The inspection Report shall be signed by the Authorized officer and a copy of the same shall be handed over to the consumer or his representative at the site immediately under proper acknowledgement. The other persons present at site may also sign the inspection report.
(5) If consumer or his representative at site refuses to Judgment 10 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana acknowledge and accept the copy of the report, a copy of the report shall be pasted at a conspicuous place in or outside the premises and photographed and/or video recorded. Another copy of the same report shall be sent to the consumer under Registered Post or Speed Post or electronically on the same day or on the next day of the inspection.
(6) The inspection report shall form the basis for further action as per the provisions contained in Regulations.
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 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 Judgment 11 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana by the Commission in this regard.
63. Assessment Bill for theft of electricity: -
(1) The Assessing officer shall assess the energy for theft of electricity as notified in the Appendix I to the Regulations.
(2) The period of assessment for theft of electricity shall be for a period of 12 (twelve) months preceding the date of detection of theft of electricity or the exact period of theft if determined, whichever is less: Provided further that period of theft of electricity shall be assessed based on the following factors: -
(i) actual period from the date of commencement of supply to the date of inspection;
(ii) actual period from the date of replacement of component of metering system in which the evidence is detected to the date of inspection;
iii) actual period from the date of preceding checking of installation by authorized officer to date of inspection;
(iv) data recorded in the energy meter memory wherever available.
(v) based on the document being relied upon by the accused person.
(3) The assessment bill shall be prepared on two times the rate as per applicable tariff.
(4) While making the assessment bill, the Licensee shall give credit to the consumer for the electricity units already paid by the consumer for the period of the assessment bill.
(5) The assessment order shall be served upon the consumer or the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises, as the case may be, within 7 (seven) days of disconnection of supply or within 2 (two) days from the date of receipt of request of such person, whichever is earlier.
25. As per prosecution case, at the time of inspection, tenant/co-accused Shabbo (who was alleged to be tenant of accused Bobby Khurana) was found to be user of the electricity in the inspected premises and was indulged in direct theft of electricity.
Judgment 12 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana
26. PW3 Sh. N. Neela Kannan (DGM) and PW1 Sh. Deepak (Videographer) are prime witnesses of this case being members of inspection team. PW3 corroborated the allegations made in the complaint ( Ex.PW3/E) and deposed that at the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed for the inspected premises and one lady was present, who disclosed her name as Shabbo and further found that she was indulged in theft of electricity with the help of two core black colour cable which was found connected from BSES YPL Pole No. GTR-I-438. Accused has not specifically denied these facts during cross-examination of PW3.
27. PW3 further deposed that at the time of inspection, total connected load was found to be 3.076 KW which was being used for domestic purposes. PW3 further deposed that illegal wire/cable through which theft of electricity was being committed, was removed and seized at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C. PW3 has also proved the load report as Ex.PW3/B as per which several electric appliances were found at the spot. Accused has not disputed the load report, its content and its genuineness.
28. PW3 further deposed that on his instruction, videographer/PW1 Sh. Deepak conducted the videography of the Inspection Proceedings in which the commission of theft of electricity at the inspected premises was recorded. PW3 also deposed that all the inspection documents were prepared at the spot in presence of Shabbo and same were Judgment 13 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana tendered to her for signature but she refused to sign the same. Again accused has not rebutted these facts in the cross-examination of PW3. PW1 and PW3 were duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused was unable to bring out any contradiction in their testimony. Rather from the cross-examination of PW3, the inspection of the premises of the accused appears to have been admitted by the accused. To the question of Ld. Counsel, PW3 stated that accused was not present at the spot at the time of inspection. Thus, accused has not denied the presence of co-accused Shabbo at the time of inspection nor the fact that she was his tenant and was residing in the inspected premises and she was user of electricity. Ld. Counsel for accused simply put suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in this case and case property is planted upon the accused which facts have been denied by PW3.
29. As per load report, certain electrical appliances like bulb, fluorescent tube light, Impersion rod, cooler, Exhaust Fan, Television, Water Pumb etc were found installed at the inspected premises. In the load report, calculation of the load has been mentioned and accused has not disputed the calculation of the load as mentioned in the load report. Accused has not rendered any alternative explanation. Accused Bobby Khurana is admittedly the owner of the inspected premises and Shabbo is stated to be user of the electricity at the relevant time. Although, accused Bobby Khurana was stated to be not present at the site at the time Judgment 14 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana of inspection, tenant/user Shabbo (since expired) was present at site at the time of inspection and no electricity meter was found installed. So it is evident that accused Bobby Khurana knew that tenant/user Shabbo also shared the intention alongwith accused to indulge into acts constituting direct theft of electricity. Furthermore, accused Bobby Khurana knew that there was no electricity meter in the inspected premises despite that she let out the said premises to Shabbo and permitted/allowed to use the inspected premises to his tenant who was user of the electricity in the inspected premises. The accused has also not led any evidence so as to prove that Shabbo was living on the inspected premises without his consent or that he initiated any eviction proceedings etc against said Shabbo prior to the date of inspection.
30.It is submitted on behalf of accused that prosecution case is highly doubtful as no public witness was joined during the inspection of the premises. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that the accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wire and these facts have been well proved by PW1 and PW3.
31. During evidence, CD (Ex.PW3/A) containing inspection proceedings was played before the court which depicted the manner in which the accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal cable. Accused has not disputed the identity of the inspected premises shown in the video contained in the CD. Furthermore, in the Judgment 15 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana entire cross-examination, accused has not disputed or rebutted the fact that there was no electricity meter in the inspected premises. It is not the case of the accused that Shabbo was not his tenant as well as user of the electricity in the inspected premises and that the electricity in the inspected premises at the first floor was running through an authorized meter.
32. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that officials of complainant company had any animosity with the accused and therefore, under these circumstances, non- joining of public witness does not affect the authenticity of the prosecution case. In this regard, this Court is supported with the case law reported as 'Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors vs Ashwani Kumar, 2010 (7) SCC 569'. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations:
".....The report prepared by the officers of the Electricity Board is an act done in discharge of their duties and could not be straightway reflected or disbelieved unless and until there was definite and cogent material on record to arrive at such a finding. The inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of his official duty by the officers of the corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in favour of such act or document and not against the same. Thus there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct."
33. In the case titled as 'Sushil Sharma vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.' in Crl. Appeal No.1060/10 decided on 22.12.2010, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that non-
Judgment 16 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana
examination of independent/public witness is no infirmity as the members of the inspection team who deposed in the court, were having no enmity against the appellant and their testimonies are trustworthy. In the present case also, there is no material to show that the BSES officials who inspected the premises of the accused were inimical to the accused.
34. In addition, nothing has come on record to show that the inspection was not conducted as per the procedure prescribed under the DERC Regulations pertaining to the theft of electricity. There is not even a suggestion in the cross examination of witnesses that there is any procedural lapse or impropriety and the guidelines as prescribed have not been followed.
35.Once the prosecution successfully establishes the charges against the accused regarding theft of electricity then in view of the statutory presumption mentioned in the third proviso of section 135 (1) of the Act it is to be presumed that accused has committed direct theft of electricity if accused fails to bring some evidence on record to rebut the presumption. Thus, in view of the proviso of section 135 (1) of the Act, after the prosecution establishes the charges of electricity theft against the accused then under the aforesaid provisions of law, the accused is legally bound to bring some material on record to rebut the statutory presumption.
Judgment 17 of 22
SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana
36. Coming to the Presumption as envisaged U/s 135 of
Electricity Act, it is to be noted that it uses the word "shall presume". Regarding the purport of the said expression, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutt Vs. State, SLP(Crl.) No. 6497/2020 as under: -
".........Courts are authorized to draw a particular inference from a particular fact, unless and until the truth of such inference is disproved by other facts. The court can, under Section 4 of the Evidence Act, raise a presumption for purposes of proof of a fact. It is well settled that a presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists. As per English Law, there are three categories of presumptions, namely, (i) presumptions of fact or natural presumption; (ii) presumption of law (rebuttable and irrebuttable); and (iii) mixed presumptions i.e., "presumptions of mixed law and fact" or "presumptions of fact recognized by law". The expression "may presume" and "shall presume" in Section 4 of the Evidence Act are also categories of presumptions. Factual presumptions or discretionary presumptions come under the division of "may presume" while legal presumptions or compulsory presumptions come under the division of "shall presume".
"May presume" leaves it to the discretion of the court to make the presumption according to the circumstances of the case but "shall presume" leaves no option with the court, and it is bound to presume the fact as proved until evidence is given to disprove it, for instance, the genuineness of a document purporting to be the Gazette of India. The expression "shall presume" is found in Sections 79, 80, 81, 83, 85, 89 and 105 of the Evidence Act."
37. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case reported as '2001 (6) SCC 16 titled as Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee', has laid down the law related to the rebuttal of statutory presumption. Relevant portion of the para no.16 is reproduced as under:-
Judgment 18 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana
"...Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard or reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'."
38. In view of the settled law, now it is to be seen if the accused taken any defence to rebut the aforesaid statutory presumption. Accused Bobby Khurana did not lead any defence evidence nor he has brought anything on record which could suggest that his tenant/user Shabbo was drawing electricity through authorized means or electricity meter. Moreover, it is admitted position of fact that there was no electricity meter for the inspected premises at the time of inspection and the electricity supply of first floor of the inspected premises was found running directly through two core black colour cable which was found connected from BSES YPL Pole No.GTR-I-438. As per load report, certain electric appliances were found in the inspected premises and accused has not explained as to from where tenant/user was drawing electricity to run those appliances. Also, it is not the case of the accused that there was any Genset and he was drawing energy from the same.
39. Notwithstanding, if the accused was not indulged in direct theft of electricity or he was using the electricity through legal sources then the easiest way to rebut the statutory presumption for the accused was to prove on record that at the time of inspection, he was drawing electricity through Judgment 19 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana his own electricity meter. However, accused has not brought anything on record to disprove the allegations brought on record by the prosecution. In view of these discussions, it is held that accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption.
40. If the tenant/user Shabbo was not indulged in direct theft of electricity or he was using the electricity through legal sources then the easiest way to rebut the statutory presumption for the accused Bobby Khurana was to prove on record that at the time of inspection, her tenant Shabbo was drawing electricity through his own electricity meter. However, accused has not brought anything on record to disprove the allegations brought on record by the prosecution. Accordingly, it is held that accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption.
41. In this regard, this court is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported as Mukesh Rastogi vs North Delhi Power Limited' 2007 (99) DRJ108. The observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are reproduced as under:-
"....6. The contention of the appellant is that electricity supply was going through meter. Had the electricity been going to the appellant's premises through meter, the easiest way to prove it was by producing the electricity bills paid by the appellant to the complainant company. The very fact that the appellant did not prove a single bill showing payment of electricity charges fortifies the plea of the complainant company that electricity was being used by the appellant directly from LT Main by committing theft. Paid electricity bills would have been the best evidence to show that the Judgment 20 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana appellant was using electricity through mere. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus was on the appellant to produce and prove such bills paid for the use of electricity. However, this was not even the case of the appellant either before trial court or in appeal that he had been using electricity through meter and had been paying bills of electricity as per meter. The appellant had only taken the stand that inspection was not valid inspection and the photographs were not proved properly".
42. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. If the tenant/user i.e. Shabbo was not indulged in direct theft of electricity or that he was using the electricity through any legal means, then the accused Bobby Khurana, who claimed himself to be owner/landlord of the inspected premises, was liable to rebut the statutory presumption by disproving the allegations made in the complaint by leading relevant defence evidence. It is admitted position of fact that inspected premises was belonging to accused Bobby Khurana at the relevant time, which was in use and occupation of her tenant Shabbo (since expired). Accused has not brought any material on record or lead any evidence to disprove the prosecution case.
43. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that user/co-accused/tenant Shabbo was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wire. It is also proved on record that accused Bobby Khurana was the owner of inspected premises and accused/user/tenant Shabbo has been proved to have indulged in direct theft of electricity by attaching illegal external device. Accused Bobby Judgment 21 of 22 SC No.13/2024 State Vs. Bobby Khurana Khurana being the owner of inspected premises let/permitted/consciously allowed the user/accused Shabbo (since expired) to commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, accused Bobby Khurana is guilty of abetment of offence of direct theft of electricity. Accordingly, accused Bobby Khurana is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 135 r/w Section 150 of the Electricity Act 2003.
Let convict be heard on quantum of sentence. Announced in the Open Court on 21.04.2026 (Ashish Rastogi) Addl. Sessions Judge-05 (Electricity) East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Judgment 22 of 22