Delhi District Court
Bses Ypl vs . Sayeed Rais Ahmed on 16 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LAL SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT)
ELECTRICITY, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
FIR No.47/2008
P.S. Jama Masjid
SC No. 05/09
U/S 135/138/151 of Electricity Act, 2003.
New case No. 28401/16
State
Verses
Sayeed Rais Ahmed
S/o Late Sh. Mukhtar Ahmed
R/o H.No. 3938 GF,
Urdu Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi. ........... Accused
Date of Institution : 12.03.2009
Argument heard on : 16.07.2016
Date of Judgment : 16.08.2016
JUDGMENT
1). On 06.10.2007, at about 12:30 pm, an inspection was carried out at the premises bearing no. 3938/B, GF, Urdu Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi, by the joint inspection team of complainant company. The inspection team was comprised of Sh.K.L.Kain (AM), Sh. Samir Barla (DET), Sh. Chandresh Kumar and Sh. Naresh Kumar (both Linemen). At the time of inspection, representative of the accused was present, who had been associated to the inspection through out the inspection proceedings, however, with malafide intentions, refused to sign the inspection reports and also did not allow to paste the reports at the site. During the course of inspection, SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 1/18 the connected load of the premises was found as 50.272 KW under IX category against the sanctioned load of 11.00KW under IX category. During inspection, the single phase electronic meter no. 17019724, meter box seals no. D559180 and D559181, meter terminal seals no.D559179 and half seals, hologram seals and ultrasonic welding found tampered and re-fixed. Meter working found tampered. Meter was checked by standards aqua check instrument and meter found slow by 44.58%. Meter was segregated at the site in the presence of consumer and found that one number resistance each phase was found illegally soldered on the PCB inside the meter. Necessary photographs / videography were taken at site by Sh. Parvesh of M/s. Arora Photographic Agency. The tampered meter was seized by Manager (Enf.) vide seizure memo. The supply of the consumer was restored through new meter no.27096940 on 6.10.2007. IR No. 38109 dated 06.10.2007 was pasted on the meter to maintain the status quo. The inspection team prepared the rough site plan/physical diagram. The inspection report, meter details report, connected load report were also prepared at the site of inspected premises.
Thereafter, show cause notice dated 06.10.2007 for Dishonest Abstraction of Energy (DAE) was issued to the consumer/accused with the request to attend the personal hearing on 20.10.2007. But the consumer / accused refused to sign and accept the same. Hence, another show cause notice dated 31.10.2007 was sent through speed post by Sh. Rajesh Doshi (Assessing officer) to consumer/accused for attending personal hearing on 14.12.2007. In response to the said show cause notice, the consumer attended the personal hearing on 14.12.2007. Therefore, on the basis of available material, Sh.Rajesh SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 2/18 Doshi (Addl. Manager, (Enf-II) passed detailed speaking order dated 26/27.03.2008, thereby observing that the DAE has been established against the accused. It is alleged by complainant company, that the average recorded consumption as per computer module works out to 30.45%, while it should not be less than 75% of the assessed consumption. The complainant company also raised the theft assessment bill in the sum of Rs.8,86,605/- against the accused. As such a complaint dated 06.06.2008 was given by Sh.K.L.Kain (Authorized officer) of complainant company, to the SHO PS Jama Masjid, for registration of FIR U/S 135/138 Electricity Act, 2003, against accused. On the basis of said complaint the police has registered the FIR bearing no. 47/2008, PS Jama Masjid, U/S 135/138 Electricity Act, 2003. Police has prepared the site plan of the inspected premises and also collected the case property and documents of the present case from the officials/officers of complainant company. Accused was also formally arrested in this case. The meter in question as seized by the inspection team at the time of inspection, was handed to the police and same was seized by the police. The police has also recorded the statement of witnesses. Therefore, on completion of investigation, the police has filed charge- sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 135/138 of Electricity Act, 2003.
2). Thereafter, vide order dated 12.03.2009, accused was summoned to face the trial for the offence alleged against him. After that, vide order dated 06.07.2009, notice u/s 251 CrPC was framed against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 135/138 & 151 of Electricity Act, 2003, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 3/18 3). In this matter, so as to prove its case, the
prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in all namely PW1 Sh. K.L. Kain (Sr. Manager), PW2 ASI Prem Pal, PW-3 SI Mohd. Haroon, PW- 4 Sh. Rajesh Doshi (General Manager), PW-5 Sh. C.B. Sharma (Legal officer), PW-6 Sh. Nirakar Roy (Assistant Vice President), PW- 7 Sh. Nafees Ahmed (Assistant Vice President), PW-8 SI Mohd. Usman and PW-9 Sh. Parvesh Kumar (M/s Arora Photo Studio).
4). Thereafter, statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded, in which accused has denied the allegations against him. Accused submitted that on 06.10.2007, the officials of the company came to the above said premises / shop for change of the meter on his complaint. Accused further stated that on 06.10.2007 he was present as the officials of the company came to change the meter, however no inspection was carried out on that day. While recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC accused also stated that meter in question was not segregated in his presence and no photography / videography was carried out in his presence. He also stated that no report were prepared in his presence. Though meter bearing no. 17019724 was taken by the officials of the company on 06.10.2007 without seizing the same. Accused also submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not indulged in alleged offence of meter tampering. However, accused has not led DE.
5). I have heard the arguments.
6). Ld. Addl. PP for the state submitted that in the
present case, accused has been indulged in Dishonest Abstraction of SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 4/18 Energy at the time of inspection in the premises in question. She further submitted that meter in question was found tampered and it was also found slow by -44.58%. Further meter was segregated at the site by the inspection team. Ld. Addl. PP also submitted that meter was not sent to the lab as at that time lab was not functional. She also submitted that accused also attended the personal hearing. Ld.Addl. PP further argued that PW-9 has also proved the CD in question. Ld.Addl. further submitted that the prosecution has proved the offence alleged against the accused.
7). On the other hand, Sh. Kshitiz Mahipal, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that inspection team was not authorized to inspect the premises in question. He also argued that pilot meter was installed at the site by the company on the request / complaint of the accused. However, the pilot meter was neither seized nor checked. Counsel for accused also argued that PW-1 has also admitted that the pilot meter was installed at the site. He further argued that meter in question was not sent to the lab for test and further the connected load was wrongly assessed. Counsel for the accused submitted that no notice was given to the accused at the site nor the reports were pasted at the site. Counsel for accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused and accused is entitled for acquittal.
8). I have considered the submissions of the Ld. Addl. PP for the state as well as ld. Counsel for the accused and also gone through the evidence on record.
9). In the present matter, prosecution has examined
SC No. 05/2009
FIR No. 47/2008
BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed
New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 5/18
9 witnesses in all. In this case, PW-5 Sh.C.B.Sharma (Legal officer), PW-6 Sh.Nirakar Roy (Vice President BYPL) and PW-7 Nafees Ahmed (Asstt. Vice President BYPL) are formal witnesses as PW-5 has filed the present complaint case vide Ex.PW-5/1 and PW-6 stated to the extent that the office of the company has issued the theft bill vide Ex.PW-6/A. PW-7 has collected the case property i.e electricity meter duly sealed with the seal of K.L.Kain (PW-1) from the Shastri Park Store of the company and he took the same to PS Jama Masjid and handed over the said case property to IO of the case, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-7/A. All the above three witnesses stated that they were not the member of the inspection team. Therefore, it is amply clear that PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are formal witnesses in the present case and they are of no much help to the complainant case.
PW-2 ASI Prem Pal and PW-3 SI Mohd. Haroon are also formal witnesses. PW-2 has received the rukka from ASI Mohd. Haroon and on the basis of said rukka/ complaint PW-2 has registered the FIR in the present case vide FIR Ex.PW-2/A. PW-3 SI Haroon received the complaint against the accused vide complaint Ex.PW-1/G and he made endorsement on the said complaint.
Further, PW-8 SI Mohd. Usman IO of the case, had prepared the siteplan vide Ex.PW-8/A at the instance of PW-1. PW-8 has seized the case property as produced by Sr. Manager, BYPL, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-7/A and further PW-8 has siezed the documents as handed over to him by PW-1 Sh.K.L.Kain vide Ex.PW- 1/H. PW-8 has formally arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW-8/B and also conducted the personal search of accused vide SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 6/18 personal search memo Ex.PW-8/C. PW-8 in his cross examination stated that he has not recorded the statement of neighborers of the accused with regard to inspection in the premises and he also did not seized any documents except the documents handed over by the officials of the company. Therefore, PW-8 was neither the member of inspection team nor he accompanied during inspection. The role of PW-8 was limited to the extent that he investigated the matter after registration of FIR.
10). PW-1 Sh.K.L.Kain (Sr. Manager) was member of the inspection team which inspected the premises. PW4 Sh.Rajesh Doshi had issued a show cause notice to the accused for personal hearing and he has also passed the speaking order and PW-9 Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Photographer (M/s Arora Photo Studio) had conducted the photography / videography regarding the irregularities at the time of inspection. Therefore, PW-1, PW-4 and PW-9 are material witnesses in the present case.
PW-1 Sh.K.L.Kain deposed that at the time of inspection, one meter bearing no. 17019724 was found existed at the premises in question and they found that the said meter was tampered by accused. PW-1 categorically deposed that at the time of inspection, accused was present at the site and entire inspection was carried out in his presence. As per PW-1 at the time of inspection, meter box of the meter was found tampered and accuracy of the meter was checked through accu check and found that meter was running slow by -44.58%. He further deposed that meter box was opened and all the seals of the meter were found tampered and meter ultrasonic was also found tampered and refixed. As per PW-1 meter was segregated at the site and found illegal resistance on PCB SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 7/18 inside the meter. PW-1 also stated that they found pilot meter bearing no. 17044837 against the meter no. 17019724 to check the accuracy of the meter. As per PW-1 they found connected load to the tune of 50.272 KW for commercial purpose and qua that load report vide Ex.PW-1/A was prepared by Sh.Sameer Barla. PW-1 has prepared the inspection report vide Ex.PW-1/B and meter detailed report was stated to be prepared by Sh.Sameer Barla vide Ex.PW-1/C. He also stated that inspection team seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/D. PW-1 deposed that videography was also conducted at the site and CD of the same was prepared vide Ex.PW- 1/D. PW-1 also stated that after completion of inspection, they offered the entire inspection report to accused present at the site but he refused to accept the same and also did not allow to paste the same. During trial, PW-1 identified the meter bearing no. 17019724 vide Ex.P1. PW-1 has also made the complaint against the accused to SHO concerned for registration of FIR against the accused vide complaint Ex.PW-1/G.
11). As per complaint given to the police for registration of FIR by PW-1 K. L. Kain, vide Ex.PW1/G, the inspection team was comprised of Sh. K.L Kain (PW1), Sh. Samir Barla(DET), Sh. Chandresh Kumar and Sh. Naresh Kumar (both line men). The perusal of inspection report Ex.PW1/B, connected load report Ex.PW1/A and meter details report Ex.PW1/C, shows that above said reports were signed by only PW1 K.L Kain and Sh. Samir Barla.
The provision of regulation 52 (ix) Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulation, 2007, is reproduced as under:-
SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 8/18 "The report shall be signed by Authorized officer and each member of the inspection team and the same must be handed over to the consumer or his/ her representative at site immediately under proper receipt. In case of refusal by the consumer or his/her representative to either accept or give a receipt, a copy of inspection report must be pasted at a conspicuous place in/outside the premises and photographed".
Admittedly, other two members of the inspection team namely Sh. Chandresh Kumar and Sh. Naresh Kumar (Both line men) had not signed the above said reports. Had they been present at the time of inspection at the site than they also ought to have signed the above said reports. Moreover, PW1 has stated nothing as to why the above said line men had not signed the reports.
Otherwise also, In the inspection report Ex.PW1/B there is no mention whether report were pasted or not at the site. Though PW1 stated in his cross-examination that they could not paste the reports at the site due to public hindrance. However, this aspect has not been mentioned in the inspection report Ex.PW1/B. Thus, the testimony of PW1 that the reports could not be pasted at the site due to hindrance by the public appears to be untrustworthy and after thought just to fill up the lacuna left by the inspection team during inspection. Therefore, the inspection team has not complied with the above said regulation at the time of inspection and same goes against the prosecution case.
12.) As per PW1, at the time of inspection, Sh.
Parvesh photographer had took the photographs to the possible extent, of segregation of meter as well as connected load and other irregularities. Though, no photographs is placed on record, whereas SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 9/18 the CD Ex.PW1/E containing the viedography stated to be conducted at the site during inspection is placed on record. PW1, during trial after going through the CD as played on laptop stated that accused as present in the Court, was also present at the site during inspection. PW9 Sh. Parvesh Kumar, who has conducted the videography stated in his cross-examination that he had not filed any certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. However, later on, on the application of prosecution, PW 9 was recalled for further examination and PW9 tendered a certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, vide Ex.PW9/A. Perusal of certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, shows that same has been signed by PW9 Sh. Parvesh Kumar and filed by him, whereas in the said certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, it is specifically mentioned that Compact disk (CD) has been prepared by Sh. Vivek Arora of Ms. Arora Photo Studio. Thus, Sh. Vivek Arora was the competent person to issue certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, as it was he who prepared the Compact Disk vide Ex.PW1/E. Therefore, the compact disk (CD) Ex.PW1/E is of no much help for the prosecution as the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, was not filed by the competent person.
13). In this case the complaint Ex.PW1/G was given by PW1 to the SHO of concerned PS, for registration of FIR against accused on 06.06.2008 qua the inspection dated. 06.10.2007. Thus it is amply clear that the complaint has been lodged after a gap of about eight months from the date of the inspection. There is no explanation from PW1 as to why there is such a long delay in filing the complaint against the accused. The provision of Regulation 52
(vii) Delhi Electricity Supply code and performance standards Regulations Act, 2007 is reproduced as under:-
SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 10/18 "In case sufficient evidence is found to establish direct theft of electricity. Licensee shall disconnect the supply and seize all material evidence including wires/cables, meter, service line etc., from the premises and within two days from date of inspection, file a case against the consumer in designated Special Court as per the provisions of Section 135 of the Act. Copy of filing shall be served on the consumer under proper receipt within two days of such filing. The Licensee shall also assess the energy consumption for past twelve (12) months as per the assessment formula prescribed in Annexe XIII and prepare final assessment bill on two times the rates as per applicable tariff and serve on the consumer under proper receipt".
In this case, the complainant company has preferred to lodge complaint with the police instead of filing the complaint case in the special court. However, perusal of the complaint Ex.PW1/G as given to the SHO concerned, the said complaint for lodging FIR against the accused was given on 06.06.2008. Thus, the complaint was given after about 8 months from the date of inspection. The prosecution witnesses particularly PW-1 who was member of the inspection team and also who had given the said complaint to police has failed to explain as to why there is such a long delay in filing the complaint with the police for registration of FIR against the accused. PW-1 has also failed to show any plausible reasons, so as to justify the delay in giving the complaint with the police. Otherwise, also the present FIR bearing no. 47/08 was registered on 03.07.2008, about 1 month from the date of giving of complaint with the police by the complainant company. Thus, apparently there is unexplained delay in lodging the complaint with the police. There is nothing on record to show that as to why the prompt action was not taken against the accused by filing the complaint immediately in the special court or by SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 11/18 giving complaint to the police immediately or within reasonable time to lodge the FIR against the accused. Therefore, unexplained delay in lodging the complaint also goes against the prosecution case.
14). In the instant matter, the meter in question was not sent to the lab for testing. PW-1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that the meter was not sent to any lab for testing. The provision of Regulation 52 (iv) & (viii) of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulation, 2007, is reproduced as under:-
(iv) The authorized officer shall prepare a report giving details such as connected load, condition of meter seals, working of meter and mention any irregularity noticed (such as tampered meter, current reversing transformer, artificial means adopted for theft of energy) as per format given in Annexe XI or as approved by the Commission from time to time.
(viii) In case of suspected theft, the authorized officer shall remove the old meter under a seizure memo and seal it in the presence of consumer/his representative.
The licensee shall continue the supply to the consumer with a new meter. The old meter shall be tested in a NABL accredited laboratory and the laboratory shall give a test report, in writing, which alongwith photographs / videographs shall constitute evidence thereof. The list of NABL accredited laboratories shall be notified by the commission. The authorized officer shall record reasons to suspect theft in the premises in his report.
PW-4 in his cross examination also admitted that he had not sent the meter in question to the laboratory for testing and also no laboratory report of meter in question was provided by the SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 12/18 enforcement department. It is the allegation of the complainant company against the accused that the meter in question installed at the site was found tampered. Therefore, the meter in question was required to be sent to Lab for testing the same, so as to prove the allegation against the accused. Thus, in these circumstances, meter in question ought to have been sent for testing in the lab. So as to prove, the allegation of Dishonest Abstraction of Energy, the meter in question should have been tested in a NABL accredited lab. However, the company has failed to sent the meter for testing. In the peculiar facts of the case, the allegation of DAE could have been established against the accused only by testing the meter in question in the laboratory. Thus, without testing the meter in question, in the lab DAE cannot be convincingly established against the accused. Therefore, the complainant company has also not complied the above said regulation.
15). PW-4 Sh.Rajesh Doshi, has issued the show cause notice dated 31.10.2007 vide Ex.PW-4/A to the accused for personal hearing on 14.12.2007 vide show cause notice Ex.PW-4/A. PW-4 stated that accused attended the personal hearing on 14.12.2007 and also filed the written reply to the said show cause notice. PW-4 has also passed the speaking order dated 26.03.2008 vide Ex.PW-4/B. He also stated that the meter was found slow by 40.58% and consumer had soldered illegal resistance on the PCB of the meter.
PW-1 also deposed that meter box was found tampered and accuracy of the meter was checked through accucheck and meter was running slow by -44.58%. Further, all the seals of the SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 13/18 meter were found tampered and meter ultrasonic welding was also found tampered and re-fixed. PW-1 stated that on segregation of meter at site, they found illegal resistance soldered on PCB inside of the meter. In the judgment titled as Col.' R.K.Nayyar vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 140 (2007) DLT 257 wherein it has been observed as under :-
"This court is of the view that an inference of fraudulent abstraction of energy must be based on the some conclusive evidence that the user has tampered with the meter in a manner that has enabled such user to either slow down the meter or make it record lesser units of consumption. There must be a link established between the physical evidence of tampering noticed on inspection and the consumer. An inference of FAE should not be permitted to be drawn on the mere fact that meter had been found with broken seal. An electricity meter is admittedly not kept enclosed in a tamper proof environment under the lock and key, with one key retained by the consumer and the other by the supplier of the electricity. If a meter is kept in a location that permits any person intending to do mischief to have easy assess to the meter, than to fasten the charge of FAE on the consumer in the event of meter being found tampered, is not being reasonable or even realistic. Something more would have to be demonstrated to infer an intention by the consumer to "fraudulently" abstract electricity. In this context it is necessary to emphasis that the analysis of consumption pattern cannot constitute substantive proof of DAE in the absence of tangible physical evidence of DAE in the manner explained above. In other words, the analysis of consumption pattern can only corroborate what is found on physical inspection which can indicate whether the consumer has herself or himself employed a device or a method to dishonestly abstract electricity. It will not be opened to the respondent, in the absence of any tangible evidence of DAE, to proceed on the basis of consumption pattern to infer DAE.SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008
BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 14/18 Therefore, the prosecution has failed to show that accused has soldered illegal resistance on PCB of the meter so as to tamper the meter in question and also so as to slow down the consumption by the meter. Moreover, complainant witnesses failed to clarify as to what actually was the illegal resistance soldered on PCB of the meter. Therefore, it is amply clear that the consumption pattern itself cannot constitute substantive proof of DAE in the absence of any tangible physical evidence of DAE.
16). It is the contention of the counsel for accused that a pilot meter was also installed at the site of the premises by the complainant company, at the request/complaint of accused. However, the said pilot meter was not seized or checked at the time of inspection. PW-1 Sh.K.L.Kain who was member of the inspection team also stated that they found pilot meter bearing no. 17044837 against the meter no. 17019724 i.e the meter in question. PW-1 in his cross examination also admitted that they had seized only the tampered meter and not the pilot meter. In the inspection report also it is mentioned that pilot meter bearing no.17044837 was found existing at the site. As per seizure memo, Ex.CW2/D only meeter bearing no. 17019724 was seized and apparently it is clear that pilot meter has not been seized. There is no explanation from PW-1 as to why the pilot meter was not seized. Moreover, the prosecution has also not denied the fact that the pilot meter was installed at the site by the company at the request / complaint of the accused. Had there been any mischief by the accused, in tampering the meter, than why he would give complaint to the company for installation of pilot meter.
Moreover, the inspection team ought to have seized the pilot meter SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 15/18 also along with the meter in question and both the meter should have been tested in the laboratory to substantiate allegation of DAE against accused. Thus, by not seizing the pilot meter at the time of inspection, by raiding team, a serious lacuna has been left by the inspection team, which also goes against the prosecution case.
17). Moreover, the inspection team had not joined any public persons during the inspection. PW-1 who was member of inspection team has stated nothing as to why the public persons were not joined in inspection. Though PW-1 stated that the reports could not pasted at the site due to public hindrance as people gathered at the spot. However, he admitted that despite of hindrance by public, they did not called the police for help. Otherwise also, PW- 1 has stated nothing, if any, efforts were made to join the public persons in the inspection. There is also no explanation if any request is made from the neighborers or any person present at the site to join the inspection. Thus, non joining of public persons at the time of inspection, despite of availability of public persons at the site, is also fatal to the prosecution case.
18). In view of the foregoing reasons as discussed above, the complainant company has failed to prove the offence alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the present case. Thus, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 135/138/151 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Bail bond of the accused stand canceled and surety are discharged. Amount, if any, deposited by the accused as a condition for bail or in pursuance to interim order of the court qua the theft assessment bill raised by the company on the basis of SC No. 05/2009 FIR No. 47/2008 BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 16/18 inspection dated 06.10.2007 be released by the company after expiry of the period of appeal.
19.) Accused to furnish bail bond in terms of Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.
20). File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court ( Lal Singh )
on 16th day of August, 2016 ASJ/(Special Court) Electricity
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
SC No. 05/2009
FIR No. 47/2008
BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed
New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 17/18
FIR No.47/2008
P.S. Jama Masjid
SC No. 05/09
U/S 135/138/151 of Electricity Act, 2003.
New case No. 28401/16
16.08.2016
Present: Ld.Addl. PP for the State
Sh.P.K.Rai, LR for the complainant company.
Sh.Kshitiz Mahipal, Counsel for the accused with accused Vide separate judgment, accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 135/138/151 of Electricity Act, 2003. Bail bond of the accused is canceled and surety is discharged. Amount, if any, deposited by the accused as a condition for bail or in pursuance to interim order of the court qua the theft assessment bill raised by the company on the basis of inspection dated 06.10.2007 be released by the company to the accused after expiry of period of appeal.
However, in terms of Section 437 (A) Cr.PC., accused is directed to furnish a bail bond for the amount of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to appear before the appellate court, as and when such notice is issued in respect of any appeal, which may be filed against this judgment.
Bail bond under section 437 (A) Cr.PC furnished and same stands accepted.
File be consigned to record room.
( Lal Singh )
ASJ/Special Court (Elect.)
Tis Hazari/Delhi/16.08.2016
SC No. 05/2009
FIR No. 47/2008
BSES YPL Vs. Sayeed Rais Ahmed
New case No. 28401/16 Page no. 18/18