Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund on 30 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (Electricity), EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No.77/2021
FIR No.158/2019
U/s 135/138/150 of Electricity Act
PS Gandhi Nagar
State versus 1) Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund
S/o Late Mr. Salek Chand
2) Smt. Geeta
S/o Sh. Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund
Both R/o IX/5224, Ground Floor,
Old Seelampur, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031.
Date of institution 18.02.2021
Arguments heard 20.07.2022
Date of judgment 30.07.2022
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the prosecution case:-
1. The BSES Yamuna Power Limited (hereinafter referred as complainant company/BSES) through its Assistant Manager Sh. Anil Kumar, had given a complaint U/s 135/138/150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the SHO, PS Gandhi Nagar with a prayer to register an FIR against the accused Sanjeev (User) and accused Geeta (Registered Consumer) U/s 135/138/150 of the Act.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that on 12.06.2019, at about 6.42 am, an inspection was carried out by the inspection team of the FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 1 of 16 complainant company at the premises of the accused persons situated at H.No. IX/5224, Ground Floor, Old Seelampur, near Peeal Wali Baithak, Delhi-110031. The inspection team was comprised of Sh. Anil Kumar (Assistant Manager), Sh. Rajeev Kumar (DET), Sh. Rashid (Technician) and Sh. Narsi (lineman). At the time of inspection, one meter bearing no.25292964 with reading of 2778 kwh of units was found installed there but the user/accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity after bypassing the said meter through two single core aluminium wires which were joined with the service cable by puncturing the service cable through PRC. Total connected load was found to the tune of 3.700 KW which was being used for domestic purpose. Necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was done by the videographer Sh. Praveen. The illegal tapping material was removed and seized at the spot. The inspection report, load report, seizure memo and advisory notice were prepared at the spot and same were tendered to the accused/user but he refused to sign and accept the same. Public persons were requested to join the inspection proceedings but none agreed. On the basis of inspection, the complainant company assessed the demand to the tune of Rs.86,213/-. Accordingly, following the guidelines of DERC, a theft bill was raised and sent to the accused but accused persons failed to deposit the said amount. Original CD of the said videography and certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act was also submitted alongwith the complaint. It is averred that accused Smt. Geeta is the registered consumer and accused Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund is the user of the electricity. The acts of the accused Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund fall within the provisions of section 135/138 of the Act and FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 2 of 16 the acts of accused Geeta fall within the provisions of section 135/138/150 of the Act. Thus, a prayer was made in the complaint to register an FIR against the accused Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund U/s 135/138 of the Act and against the accused Geeta U/s 135/138/150 of the Act.
3. The SHO handed over the said complaint (Ex.PW2/7) to Duty Officer with the direction to register an FIR and handover the investigation of the case to HC Nandu Pathak. The Duty Officer registered the FIR No.158/2019 against the accused persons U/s 135/138/150 of the Act and marked the investigation of the case to HC Nandu Pathak, the IO of the case. Thereafter, IO visited the inspected premises, prepared site plan, served the accused persons with the notices U/s 41.1A Cr.P.C. Both accused persons joined the investigation. IO collected copies of Aadhar card of the accused persons as well as copies of documents pertaining to inspected premises. IO bound down both the accused persons vide Pabandinamas. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons U/s 135/138/150 of the Act.
4. On 13.05.2022, a notice for the commission of offence U/s 135 of the Act was given to accused and for the commission of offences U/s 135 r/w section 150 of the Act was given to the accused Geeta. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses. In order to put the facts in chronological order, the testimony of members of inspection team is being discussed first:-
FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 3 of 16 (5.1) PW2 Sh. Anil Kumar is the Assistant Manager of the complainant company. This witness deposed that on 12.06.2019, at about 6.42 am, an inspection was conducted by the enforcement team of BSES YPL comprising of himself, Sh. Rajeev Kumar (DET), Sh. Rashid Ali (Lineman), Sh. Pravin (videographer) at the premises of accused persons i.e. H.No.IX/5224, Ground Floor, Old Seelampur, near Peepalwali Baithak, Delhi-31. At the time of inspection, one meter No.25292964 with reading of 2778 KWH units was found installed at the premises of accused in the name of Geeta for domestic purpose, however, the accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity with the help of illegal wire which was directly connected from service cable and the meter was bypassed. Total connected load was found to the tune of 3.700 KW which was being used for domestic purpose. At the time of inspection, accused was present at the spot and necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was done by the videographer Sh. Pravin. The CD containing videography of the inspection proceedings has been brought on record as Ex.PW2/1. During evidence before the court, the CD was played on the laptop and PW2 identified the video which was recorded by the videographer during inspection. PW2 identified the accused Sanjeev featuring in the said video. The inspection report Ex.PW2/2 and the load report Ex.PW2/3 were prepared at the spot. PW2 further deposed that the illegal wire was removed by lineman Sh. Rashid Ali and seized at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/4. During inspection, PW2 also issued an advisory notice (Ex.PW2/5) to the accused. The documents prepared at the site were tendered to the accused for signature but he refused to sign and FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 4 of 16 accept the same. On the basis of inspection, a theft bill of Rs.86,213/-
(Ex.PW2/6) was raised and sent to the accused. PW2 further deposed that on 25.06.2019, he lodged a complaint (Ex.PW2/7) to the SHO, PS Gandhi Nagar for registration of an FIR against the accused persons. During evidence before the court, the case property i.e. two Red and Black colour illegal aluminum cables of 25 (mm) square size having length of one foot approx, were produced and shown to the witness who identified the said wires as the same which were removed and seized at the time of inspection conducted that the premises of the accused. The said wires has been brought on record as Ex.P1 (colly).
(5.2) PW3 Sh. Rajeev Kumar is the Diploma Trainee Engineer (DET). This witness was another member of the inspection team and he has corroborated the allegations made in the complaint Ex.PW2/7.
(5.3) PW1 ASI Nandu Pathak is the IO of the case. This witness deposed that on 04.07.2019, on the direction of SHO, a complaint (Ex.PW2/7) lodged by Sh. Anil Kumar was handed over to Duty Officer for registration of an FIR. Accordingly, FIR No.158/2019 was registered and the investigation was marked to him. The copy of the FIR has been brought on record as Ex.PW1/1. PW1 further deposed that 04.07.2019, he visited the inspected premises and prepared site plan Ex.PW1/2. On 12.07.2019, he again visited there and served the accused Sanjeev with the notice u/s 41(A) of the Cr.P.C (Ex.PW1/3) and on the same day, accused Sanjeev joined the investigation. During interrogation, accused Sanjeev produced copy of his Aadhar Card Mark A. During investigation, it came to notice that accused Sanjeev is the owner of the inspected premises and FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 5 of 16 he was bound down vide Pabandinama Ex.PW1/4. PW1 further deposed that on 13.07.2019, he again visited inspected premises and served the accused Geeta with the notice u/s 41(A) of the Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/5) and on the same day, she joined the investigation. During interrogation, accused Geeta produced copy of her Aadhar Card Mark B. She was also bound down vide Pabandinama Ex.PW1/6. After completion of investigation, he filed the present charge-sheet.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of both accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Both accused persons admitted that an inspection was carried out at their premises. They have also admitted that meter no.25292964 was installed in the name of accused Geeta. They have also not disputed that accused Sanjeev was user at the time of inspection. Both accused also admitted that accused Sanjeev was present at the spot at the time of inspection and necessary videography was done by the videographer. Accused persons denied the allegations of electricity theft. However, accused persons stated that they have settled the matter with the complainant company and they have also made the payment and an NOC has been issued. Accused persons did not lead any evidence to their defence.
7. Final arguments have been heard from the Ld. Addl. PP as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. During the course of arguments, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that at the time of inspection, one electricity meter No.25292964 was found installed at the inspected premises in the name of accused Geeta. It is also submitted that inspected premises belongs to accused persons and during relevant time, co-accused Sanjeev was user.
FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 6 of 16 Accused Geeta being registered consumer let the user/co-accused Sanjeev commit direct theft of electricity. Accused Sanjeev was indulged in direct theft of electricity after bypassing the said meter with the help of illegal wire which was joined with the service cable. It is further argued that the complainant company has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
8. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, argued that accused persons are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons have not committed any theft of electricity. It is further submitted that matter has already been settled with the complainant company and settlement amount has already been paid and an NOC has already been issued by the complainant company.
9. Before proceeding further and before dealing with the factual aspects of the present case, it is deemed appropriate to 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 sections 135/150 of Electricity Act. The provisions of section 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 FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 7 of 16
(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:
Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use -
(i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity;
(ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity:
Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any other source or generating station:
Provided also that if it is provided that any artificial means or means not authorized 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.
FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 8 of 16 Section 150. Abetment. - (1) Whoever abets an 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.
10. 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".
11. As per prosecution case, at the time of inspection, one electricity meter No.25292964 was found installed at the inspected premises in the name of accused Geeta. Accused Sanjeev was found to be user. At the time of inspection, accused Sanjeev was found indulged in direct theft of FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 9 of 16 electricity through illegal wire after bypassing the aforesaid meter through illegal wires which were joined with the service cable by puncturing the service cable through PRC. Accused Geeta, registered consumer, let the user/accused Sanjeev commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, the onus was on the prosecution to prove these allegations against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
12. PW2 Sh. Anil Kumar (Assistant Manager) and PW3 Sh. Rajeev Kumar (DET) are the material witnesses in this case. PW2 and PW3 have corroborated the allegations made in the complaint (Ex.PW2/7) and their testimony is in conformity with the documents i.e. inspection report (Ex.PW2/2), load report (Ex.PW2/3), seizure memo (Ex.PW2/4), advisory notice (Ex.PW2/5) and copy of electricity bill Ex.PW2/6. PW2 and PW3 have has also identified the accused Sanjeev in the video contained in the CD (Ex.PW2/1).
13. PW1 IO ASI Nandu Pathak deposed that during investigation, it came to notice that accused Sanjeev was the user as well as owner of the inspected premises. This fact has not been disputed by the accused persons in the cross-examination of PW1.
14. It is clear from the testimony of PW2 and PW3 that on 12.06.2019, at about 6.42 am, an inspection was carried out at the premises of accused persons by the inspecting team members/officials of complainant company and at the time of inspection, electricity meter no.25292964 was found installed in the name of accused Geeta and this fact has not been disputed by the accused persons in the cross-examination FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 10 of 16 of PW2 and PW3. It is further clear from the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as statements of accused persons recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C that the inspected premises belongs to accused persons and accused Geeta was registered consumer and accused Sanjeev was user in the inspected premises. It is further clear from the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as video contained in the CD Ex.PW2/1 that the user/accused Sanjeev was indulged in direct theft of electricity after bypassing the said meter through illegal wires which were joined with the service cable after puncturing the service cable through PRC. Inspection proceedings were recorded by videographer and CD containing videography of the said inspection proceedings was brought on record as Ex.PW2/1. It is also clear from the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 that the illegal wires were removed by the lineman and this fact has not been disputed by the accused persons in the cross-examination of these witnesses. In his statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C, both accused persons admitted that accused Sanjeev was present at the spot at the time of inspection and necessary videography was done by the videographer. Perusal of cross- examination of PW2 and PW3 show that though, the accused persons endevaoured to dispute the factum of inspection, preparation of inspection documents, seizure memo and videography of the inspection proceedings, however, they have not specifically disputed the factum of preparation of the relevant documents, the contents and authenticity of the inspection report and CD containing videography of the inspection proceedings. Accused persons have not specifically disputed the genuineness of assessment of load assessed by the complainant as specified in the load FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 11 of 16 report Ex.PW2/3. During evidence, PW2 and PW3 identified the video recorded by videographer as well as user/accused Sanjeev featuring in the said video and the accused persons have neither disputed the identity of the accused Sanjeev nor disputed the contents of the video in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons have also not disputed the identity of the inspected premises depicted in the video contained in the CD Ex.PW2/1. Thus, the factum of inspection, presence of accused/user well as videography of the inspection proceedings conducted by the videographer stand proved.
15. In their statements, PW2 and PW4 have clearly deposed that meter no. 25292964 was lying installed in the name of accused Geeta and accused Sanjeev was the user and the said meter was bypassed with the help of illegal wires which were joined with the service cable by puncturing the service cable through PRC and accused/user was indulged in direct theft of electricity in the aforesaid manner. It is also clear from the statements of prosecution witnesses as well as statements of accused persons recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C that the inspected premises belongs to accused persons and at the time of inspection, accused Sanjeev was user and accused Geeta was the registered consumer. Thus, in view of settled provision of section 150 of the Act, accused Geeta being registered consumer is liable for abetment of the offence of direct theft of electricity as she let the user/accused Sanjeev commit direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. Accused persons endevaoured to deny the fact that the accused/user was not indulged in theft of electricity, however, it is clear that during evidence before the court, CD (Ex.PW2/1) containing FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 12 of 16 video clip of inspection proceedings was played before the court which depicted the manner in which user/accused Sanjeev was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires.
16. As per testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, inspected premises belongs to accused persons and accused Geeta is the registered consumer thus, it was her duty to ensure that no illegal activity is carried out qua the said electricity connection. It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the user/accused Sanjeev was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. It is not the case of the accused Geeta that she was not aware about the factum of direct theft of electricity being committed by the accused Sanjeev. The accused Geeta has not specifically denied the factum of direct theft of electricity committed by the accused Sanjeev. It is clear from their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C, that accused persons have settled the matter qua theft bill with the complainant company and they have already paid the settlement amount and an NOC has also been obtained by them. In case, accused Geeta was unaware that co- accused/user Sanjeev has committed direct theft of electricity then she ought to have brought this fact to the notice of the complainant and she ought to have disassociated herself from the said illegal activity of accused Sanjeev. However, it is clear that accused Geeta did not take any action in this regard against the accused Sanjeev and her aforesaid conduct speaks for itself that she was well aware of the illegal act of the accused Sanjeev. Thus, under these facts and circumstances, it can be very well said that once the accused Geeta had come to know about the said illegal activity of FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 13 of 16 the accused Sanjeev, she ought to have taken appropriate action against the accused Sanjeev and she was also duty bound to inform the complainant company about the same, however, she did not do the needful though, she was well aware that co-accused/user Sanjeev is indulged in direct theft of electricity. Thus, under these circumstances, it can be very well said that Geeta has abetted the offence of direct theft of electricity and therefore, she is liable U/s 135 r/w section 150 of the Act.
17. In view of the statutory presumption mentioned in the third proviso of section 135 (1) of the Act, once the prosecution successfully establishes the charges against the accused regarding the theft of electricity, it is to be presumed that accused has committed theft of electricity unless accused brings some evidence on record to rebut the presumption. In view of the discussions made in the preceding paras, it is held that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused persons that the accused Sanjeev who was user in the inspected premises was indulged in direct theft of electricity, in connivance with accused Geeta and therefore, in view of the third proviso of section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act 2003, it is to be presumed that co-accused Sanjeev was indulged in direct theft of electricity, in connivance with accused Geeta, if they are unable to rebut the statutory presumption.
18. The 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:-
"...Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 14 of 16 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'."
19. In view of the settled law, now it is to be seen if the accused persons have taken any defence to rebut the statutory presumption. Accused persons have simply stated in their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that they have already settled the dispute and settlement amount has already been paid by them and an NOC has also been issued. Accused persons did not lead any evidence to their defence. If the co- accused Sanjeev was not indulged in direct theft of electricity or that he was using the electricity through any legal means, then the accused accused persons were 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 at the relevant time, accused Sanjeev was user and accused Geeta was the registered consumer. It is clear from the evidence led by prosecution that at the time of inspection, co-accused/user Sanjeev was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires after bypassing the electricity meter. Accused persons have not brought any material on record or lead any evidence to disprove all these allegations. Thus, it is held that accused persons have failed to rebut the statutory presumption. 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:-
FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 15 of 16 "....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 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".
20. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the co-accused/user Sanjeev was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal wires for the offence punishable U/s 135 of the Act. It is also proved on record that accused Geeta was registered consumer and accused Sanjeev was user in the inspected premises and user/accused Sanjeev was indulged in direct theft of electricity and accused Geeta let the co-accused/user Sanjeev commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, accused Geeta is guilty of abetment of offence of direct theft of electricity. Accordingly, co-accused Sanjeev is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act and accused Geeta is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 135 r/w section Digitally 150 of the Electricity Act 2003. AJAY signed by AJAY GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2022.07.30 16:17:44 -0400 (Ajay Gupta) Addl. Sessions Judge (Electricity) East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Announced in open court on 30.07.2022 FIR No.77/2021 State vs Sanjeev @ Bal Mukund & Anr. 16 of 16