Delhi District Court
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd vs Ravi Aggarwal And Ors on 8 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, ELECTRICITY COURT, DISTT. NORTH
WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-005584-2019
CC No. 170/2019
P.S. Bawana
U/S. 135 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited
Erstwhile (North Delhi Power Limited)
Regd. Office at:
Grid Sub Station Building
Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp
Delhi-110 009
Also At:
EAC, HRDI, Sector-3, Rohini,
Delhi-110 085 ........Complainant
VS.
(1) Ravi Aggarwal @ Ravi Bansal
S/o: Sh. Puran Chand (RC)
R/o: 58, Vasudha Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-34.
(2) Amit Bansal
S/o: Sh. Ravi Aggarwal (User)
R/o: 58, Vasudha Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-34.
Inspected at:
CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 1 of 25
I-238, Sector-1,
DSIDC Bawana,
Delhi-39.
........ Accused Persons
Date of Institution 01.06.2019
Date of Reserving judgment 05.01.2024
Date of Judgment 08.01.2024
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 09.07.2018 at about 2.30 PM a team of TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Complainant Company') comprising of Sh. Kishan Bahadur (Senior Manager), Sh. Rahul Dalal (Officer) and Sh. Prem (Photographer) from M/s.
Studio Prem Vishnu visited at I-238, Sector-01, DSIDC, Bawana, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'premises'). Inspecting team found one meter bearing no. 70001762, vide CA No. 60012275743 (hereinafter referred to as 'meter in question') was installed in the name of the accused Ravi Aggarwal. The inspecting team made following observations :-
"...Meter body and meter box, resin Cast Unit found CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 2 of 25 heavily burnt. Burnt remains/part of LTCT Meter seized for testing by third party lab... ".
2. The total connected load was found to be 167.348 KW against the sanctioned load of 90 KW, which was being used for industrial purpose for manufacturing of plastic dana. The photographer Sh. Prem Chand took the photographs of the site in question and conducted the videography as well. Thereafter, inspection report was prepared and after signing the inspection report, the same was served to the accused Amit Bansal, who was present at site, who received the inspection report and signed the same. Inspecting team prepared the seizure memo after signing the same and was served to the accused Amit Bansal, who was present at the site, who received the same. The inspection report is Ex. PW1/A and the seizure memo is Ex. PW1/B. Inspecting team served the notice dated 09.07.2018 for testing of the meter on 17.07.2018 at 2.00 PM and same was received by the accused Amit Bansal, which is Ex. PW1/C.
3. Meter was sent to the meter testing laboratory i.e. Electronics And Quality Development Centre (hereinafter referred as to 'EQDC'). The report is Ex. PW5/A, wherein on the visual observation it is observed that "as per the photographs of site inspection dated 09.07.2018, energy meter was found completely burnt. As no electrical testing could be carried out on this completely burnt energy meter, TPDDL was requested to forward this completely burnt energy meter to the competent laboratory like CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 3 of 25 forensic lab for further testing and validation".
4. Thereafter, meter in question was tested in Truth Lab (hereinafter referred as to 'Lab'). The report of Truth Lab is Ex. PW4/D (hereinafter referred as to 'Lab Report'). Photographs are Ex. PW6/C1 to C24. The Compact Disc (hereinafter referred to as 'CD') is Ex. PW6/B. Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, is Ex. PW6/A. PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE:-
5. The complainant examined two witnesses during pre- summoning evidence. They exhibited the inspection report, seizure memo, photographs and certificate U/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. On the basis of the complainant documents, the accused persons were summoned U/s. 135/138 & Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as '2003, Act'). NOTICE:-
6. The accused persons was heard on the point of notice. A prima facie case was made out U/s. 135/138 r/w Section 150 of 2003, Act against the accused persons and accordingly, notice was framed.
COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE:-
7. PW1 Shri Kishan Bahadur (Senior Manager), who deposed that on 09.07.2018, he alongwith Sh. Rahul Dalal (Officer) and Mr. Prem (Photographer) from M/s. Studio Prem Vishu visited at the premises of the accused persons, where meter in question was CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 4 of 25 installed at site, which was found completely in burnt condition in the name of the accused Ravi Aggarwal. The meter body, meter box and CT Unit was completely burnt. He further deposed that the remains of all these things were seized by them and site inspection report was prepared. The said inspection report is Ex. PW1/A, which bears his signature at point A and B. The total connected load at the time of inspection was found to be 167 KW approximately. The same was used for industrial purpose. He further deposed that the inspection report was dully signed by Mr. Amit Bansal at point C. All illegal materials were seized under the seizure memo, which is Ex. PW1/B, bearing his signature at point D and also bears the signature of Mr. Amit Bansal at point E. He further deposed that a notice for testing of meter was prepared by him, which is Ex. PW1/C, bears his signature at point F and the same was served upon the accused Amit Bansal and also bears his signature at point G. Thereafter, all the seized material was sent to Lab for testing. Total 24 photographs were taken by the photographer at his instance and videography was also done at site.
8. PW-2 Sh. B.L. Gupta (AGM), who deposed that after receiving the file from laboratory, he analysed the laboratory report, inspection report and consumption pattern. As per the observation of these records, he passed the speaking order on 08.10.2018, which is Ex. PW2/A. The same bears his signatures at point A. Mark X is the consumption pattern analysis which was prepared by him.
CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 5 of 259. PW-3 Sh. Devi Sahai (Photographer), who deposed that on 17.07.2018, he had gone to Meter Testing Lab situated at Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi for taking the photographs and after reaching there, he took photograph of the meter at the instructions of Sh. Brijesh Kaushik. He further deposed that after taking the photographs, the same were handed over to the staff of the complainant company on the next day. He also gave a certificate u/s. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and the same bears his signatures at point A and the same is Ex. PW3/A. He also prepared the CD and the same is Ex. PW3/B.
10. PW-4 Ms. Akansha Chaudhary (Senior Scientific Officer), who deposed that on 31.07.2018, she had received a forwarding letter from Mr. Brajnath Dey along with a sealed bag, with documents i.e. inspection report, seizure memo, site observation report. The forwarding letter is Ex.PW4/A bearing her signatures at point A. They registered a case with ID No. TLD/PC/08/18. The bag was opened on 07.08.2018 and the meter in question was tested. She further deposed that they took the photograph of the bag in sealed condition before starting the testing, which is at page No. 3 of the report and the same is Ex.PW4/B1 and the photograph was taken after taking out the meter, which is Ex. PW4/B2. Thereafter, they started the preliminary examination of the meter including its physical condition, conditions of wires and debris. She further deposed that after that they took a small amount of debris for the CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 6 of 25 purpose of Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry (hereinafter referred as to 'GCMS'), which was sent to M/s. Truth Lab in Hyderabad as the instruments of GCMS were available there. The GCMS examination were done to find out if there was any flammable material available in the debris/residue. She further deposed that they took some wire samples from the meter for microscopic examination to rule out the possibility of short circuit. No flammable material was found during GCMS examination. The GCMS report dated 22.08.2018 is Ex.PW4/C. During the microscopic examination of the wires, no signs of Beading, Annealing were found. She further deposed that they ruled out the possibility of short circuit as cause of the burning of the meter. Based on the information provided by the TPDDL, in the inspection report provided with forwarding letter, no fire was found in the premises, so they ruled out the possibility of burning of the meter in the fire in the premises. Based on the other physical conditions of the meter the meter was found to be extensively burnt which is not possible in case of short circuit or overloading. Hence, it was concluded that the meter was exposed to sustained and prolonged high flame and high temperature flame source, so it was burnt completely alongwith wooden logs on which it was mounted. The root cause of the burning of the meter was deliberate burning by exposing it to the external fire source. Her lab report dated 21.09.2018 alongwith forwarding letter is Ex. PW4/D bearing her CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 7 of 25 signatures at point A on each page. The report was forwarded by Mr. Desh Deepak, Director of M/s Truth Lab and bear his signatures at point B on the Forensic Analysis Report and at point A on the forwarding letter. The meter was sealed with the seal of M/s. Truth Lab and the sample seal is enclosed with her report Ex. PW4/D.
11. PW-5 Sh. D.C. Patel (Engineer), who deposed that as per the record, the present case pertains to the energy meter test and analysis report no. EQP/GT0001-2018/0001-2130 issued on dated 01.10.2018 and the same Ex. PW5/A, bearing the signatures of Sh. Anil Dange, who has approved the report and Sh. Kirit Parmar, who has prepared the report at point A and B. He can identify the signatures of both the said persons as he has worked with them. He has verified from his office that these reports were prepared by the officials concerned at the time by Sh. Anil Dange and Sh. Kirit Parmar, who are not presently working with EQDC as Sh. Kirit Parmar has left the company and Sh. Anil Dange has retired.
12. PW-6 Sh. Prem Chand (Photographer), who deposed that on 09.07.2018, he had taken the photographs on the instructions of Sh. Rahul Dalal. He does not remember as to how many photographs he had taken. He had also done the videography of the inspection, however, he does not remember at the moment whether the videography was also done for the seizure. He had filed the certificate Ex. PW6/A bearing his signature at point A under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The CD is Ex. PW6/B. The CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 8 of 25 photographs are Ex. PW6/C1 to Ex. PW6/C24.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS:-
13. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons have been recorded. All incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons. They stated that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant company. They stated that they have not committed any alleged offence and the meter in question was burnt accidentally due to short circuit and not due to any deliberate or intentional act/commission on their part. There is no motive to commit the alleged offence. The data of this burnt meter was downloaded by the complainant company just few days before the date of incident. They led the defence evidence. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:-
14. The accused Amit Bansal examined himself as DW-1. who deposed that he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant matter. No offence as alleged in the present case has been committed by him. He further deposed that there was no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence and data of the meter in question was downloaded recently by TPDDL. The form pertaining data download is Mark A. He further deposed that on the alleged date of incident, he alongwith his father (accused Ravi Aggarwal) and family were not in Delhi as they had gone to attend wedding of his younger brother at Jaipur, Rajasthan. The copy of wedding card is Mark B. He further deposed that on the happening of the alleged CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 9 of 25 incident the electricity supply of the meter in question was disrupted and he was compelled to pay 34,87,919/-. That the alleged incident was on account of accidental short circuit and not on account of any deliberate burning. The bank statement alongwith copy of demand draft is Ex. DW1/1.
THE POSITION IN LAW:-
15. Before dealing with the factual aspect of the present case, it is deemed appropriate to specify the relevant provision of the Act which are required to be gone into for appropriate disposal of the cases pertaining to section 135/138 of 2003, Act. The provisions 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 CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 10 of 25 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 CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 11 of 25 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.
Section 138 Interference with meters or works of licensee-(1) Whoever-
(a) unauthorisedly connects any meter, indicator or apparatus with any electric line through which electricity is supplied by a licensee or disconnects the same from any such electric line; or
(b) unauthorisedly reconnects any meter, indicator or apparatus with any electric line or other works being the property of a licensee when the said electric line or other works has or have been cut or disconnected; or
(c) lays or causes to be laid, or connects up any works for the purpose of communicating with any other works belonging to a licensee; or
(d) maliciously injures any meter, indicator, or apparatus belonging to a licensee or willfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator or apparatus or prevents any such meter, indicator or apparatus from duly registering.
16. As per the complaint, accused persons allegedly were found indulged in dishonest abstraction of energy. Thus, the onus was on the complainant company to prove on the scale of beyond reasonable doubt:-
(i) That the accused persons were found indulged in dishonest abstraction of energy by subjecting the meter in question to prolong and sustained high temperature heat sources allowing it to burn steadily which resulted in metallic pieces of the burnt parts to detach CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 12 of 25 and fall down while the plastic parts formed into lumps of molten materials with metallic parts clinging to the remnants.
(ii) That the connected load was found to be 167.348 KW as against the sanctioned load of 90 KW.
ADMITTED FACTS:-
17. The accused persons have not disputed the burning of the meter in question. The accused persons have also not disputed that the inspection in the premises took place on 09.07.2018. The inspection report, seizure memo and the notice, which was served upon the accused Amit Bansal are also admitted. The matter in controversy between the parties is the cause of burning of the meter in question.
18. The complainant company has initiated criminal prosecution against the accused persons on the basis of the findings of Truth Lab, which was arrived by scientifically examining the meter in question. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it will be appropriate to discuss the relevancy and admissibility of the forensic ayalysis report.
RELEVANCY, ADMISSIBILITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE:-
19. Opinion of an expert is relevant under Section 45 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. For bringing the evidence of a witness as an expert, it has to be established that expert has made a special CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 13 of 25 study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject. The requirements for the admissibility of the expert evidence are:
(i) that the expert must be qualified in that discipline.
(ii)that the expert must be within a recognised field of expertise and
(iii) that the evidence must be based on reliable principles.
20. It is the duty of the expert to put before the Court all the materials and mention the scientific criteria which induced the expert for arriving to the said opinion. The opinion of an expert cannot be relied unless the expert is examined as a witness. An expert is not a witness of fact, therefore, the credibility of such witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusion and the data and the material furnished, which form the basis of such conclusion. The Court has to check the validity of the process by which the conclusion is arrived. The Court has to form his independent judgment by the application of scientific criteria to the material and data which was the basis for an expert to reach to the said opinion. Mere assertions without mentioning the data or basis is no evidence in the eyes of law, even if, it comes from an expert. In case the opinion is intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor often an important factor for consideration alongwith other evidence of the case. Reliance is placed upon the judgment titled as Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 709.
CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 14 of 25The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"....Expert opinion
16. The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the layperson. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the court's knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved, is highly specialised and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of an expert cannot be disputed. The other requirements for the admissibility of expert evidence are:
(i) that the expert must be within a recognised field of expertise,
(ii) that the evidence must be based on reliable principles, and
(iii) that the expert must be qualified in that discipline.
(See Errors, Medicine and the Law, Alan Merry and Alexander McCall Smith, 2001 Edn., Cambridge University Press, p. 178.)
17. Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 speaks of expert evidence. It reads as under:
"45. Opinions of experts.--When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 15 of 25 handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts.
Such persons are called experts.
Illustrations
(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison.
The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.
(b) The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.
(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant."
18. The importance of the provision has been explained in State of H.P. v. Jai Lal [(1999) 7 SCC 280 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1184] . It is held, that, Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down, that, when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 16 of 25 of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.
19. It is not the province of the expert to act as Judge or Jury. It is stated in Titli v. Alfred Robert Jones [AIR 1934 All 273] that the real function of the expert is to put before the court all the materials, together with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials.
20. An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions. (See Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee [(2009) 9 SCC 221 : (2009) 10 Scale 675] , SCC p. 249, para 34.)
21. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu [(2000) 6 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1088 : AIR 2000 SC 1691] , it has been laid down that without CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 17 of 25 examining the expert as a witness in court, no reliance can be placed on an opinion alone. In this regard, it has been observed in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram [(1979) 2 SCC 158 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 389 : AIR 1979 SC 14] that "no expert would claim today that he could be absolutely sure that his opinion was correct, expert depends to a great extent upon the materials put before him and the nature of question put to him".
22. In the article "Relevancy of Expert's Opinion"
it has been opined that the value of expert opinion rests on the facts on which it is based and his competency for forming a reliable opinion. The evidentiary value of the opinion of an expert depends on the facts upon which it is based and also the validity of the process by which the conclusion is reached. Thus the idea that is proposed in its crux means that the importance of an opinion is decided on the basis of the credibility of the expert and the relevant facts supporting the opinion so that its accuracy can be crosschecked. Therefore, the emphasis has been on the data on the basis of which opinion is formed. The same is clear from the following inference:
"Mere assertion without mentioning the data or basis is not evidence, even if it comes from an expert. Where the experts give no real data in support of their opinion, the evidence even though admissible, may be excluded from consideration as affording no assistance in arriving at the correct value...".
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-
21. The entire case of the complainant company is based upon the report of Lab, which is Ex. PW4/D. In the report, it has CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 18 of 25 been concluded that the meter in question was subjected to prolong and sustained high temperature heat sources allowing it to burn steadily which resulted in metallic pieces of the burnt parts to detach and fall down while the plastic parts formed into lumps of molten materials with metallic parts clinging to the remnants. Moreover, the root cause of burning of meter in question is due to deliberate exposure to external heat sources by someone who has the means, motive and opportunity to indulge in such act. The meter in question was examined by Ms. Akansha Choudhary, who has been examined as PW-4. The conclusion of the report is reproduced below:-
"8. CONCLUSION Based on the visual, physical, chemical and stereomicroscopic as well as tool mark examination of the remnants of the burnt electric meter, the cause of burning of digital electric meter No. 70001762 installed vide CA No. 60012275743 was:
8.1 not due to electric short circuit caused by defective electrical components or excessive power transmission effects as observed from the steromicroscopic data, 8.2 not on account of deliberate use of ignitable fire accelerants for burning as seen from the results of GC-MS analysis, 8.3 not on account of any other natural calamities such as lightening, thunderstorm etc., 8.4 not on account of burning of premises where the meter was installed as the premises was found unaffected.
8.5 but due to superficial burning of the meter assembly by subjecting it to prolonged and sustained high temperature heat sources allowing it to burn steadily that caused the metallic pieces of CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 19 of 25 the burnt parts to detach and fall down while the plastic parts formed into lumps of molten materials with metallic parts clinging to the remnants, and 8.6 The root cause of burning of electric meter is due to deliberate exposure to external heat sources by someone who has the means, motive and opportunity to indulge in such act.".
22. The close scrutiny of the lab report suggest that the heat source by which the meter in question was allegedly subjected to prolonged and sustained high temperature has not been opined. It is pertinent to mention here that the GC-MS examination does not suggest the presence of any ignitable range of hydrocarbon. The said test report, which is Ex. PW4/C is reproduced below for ready reference:-
TEST RESULTS S. Name of the identified Compound RT Comments Carbon No. Number I Hydrocarbons related to Petrol, Kerosene and Diesel
1. Not Detected ----- --------- NA II Other major volatile flammable/Other major hydrocarbons
1. Not Detected ----- ---------- NA III Other major ingredients
1. Phenol, 4,4'(1-methylethyidene)bis- 21.221 NIST Library Search Hit No-1 C15
23. Moreover, GC-MS analysis as mentioned in the Ex. PW4/D states that the external surface of the burnt meter and strands of wire did not reveals the presence of any ignitable range of hydrocarbon such as petrol, kerosene etc. The relevant portion of the CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 20 of 25 report is reproduced below:-
"7.2 GC-MS Analysis:
7.2.1 The chemical analysis of trace evidences collected from the external surface of the burnt meters and strands of wires did not reveal the presence of any ignitable range of hydrocarbons suggestive of fire caused by extraneous fire accelerants such as petrol, kerosene, etc. 7.2.2. The organic compounds detected are found to be derived from pyrolysis products of plastic insulation and other synthetic parts of meter. (GC-
MC analysis reports enclosed).".
24. This categorically proves on record that the meter in question has not been burnt by extraneous fire accelerants.
25. PW-4 in her examination in chief has stated that they have ruled out the possibility of short circuit as during the microscopic examination of wires no sign of beading and annealing were found. Admittedly, some wire samples has been tested under microscopic examination meaning thereby all the wires which were attached with the meter in question has not been examined. It has been brought out in her cross examination that the report is silent about the wires, which were tested, were pertaining to the outward or inward supply to the meter in question. PW-4 has also failed to tell the specifications/size of the wire, which was allegedly tested. It has been further brought out in the cross examination that there is a possibility that Beading and Annealing are not formed in cases of short circuit. This creates a doubt to the finding, whereby the possibility of the short circuit has been ruled out. PW-4 has also CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 21 of 25 admitted that it was not possible for her to examine cause of fire due to loose circuit connection or any other fault in the meter. PW-4 has also admitted the suggestion that she cannot with certainty say that the meter was faulty/defective. The relevant portion of the cross examination is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"...It is correct that I can not say with certainty that the meter in question was faulty/defective or not due to internal fault which resulted in the burning of the meter due to short circuit...".
26. Moreover, PW-4 has accepted the suggestion that the outer cast of meter in question can melt and burn partially due to flash fire/sparking. This clearly indicates that the observation mentioned at para 8.1 of the report has not been scientifically tested. PW-4 has answered in affirmation that she has not conducted any specific test to find out that the burning of the meter was due to external source. The relevant portion of the cross examination is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"...Q. Have you conducted any scientific specific test to find out that the burning of the meter was due to some alleged external source?
Ans. I have not conducted any such specific test...".
27. PW-4 has accepted the suggestion that she had not examined the extent of heat and burning in the present case, which creates doubt to the observation (8.5) that the meter was subjected to prolong and sustained high temperature heats source. It has been further brought out in the cross examination of PW-4 that the CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 22 of 25 findings as mentioned in para 8.6 of the report regarding the means, motive and opportunity to burn the electric meter was based on presumption and does not have any scientific basis. Apparently, the findings of Lab regarding the motive is beyond the scope and purview of scientific test. Moreover, PW-4 has admitted that the possibility of the meter in question to get fire from the adjacent meter installed near it. The relevant portion of the cross examination is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"...I have not conducted any specific scientific test to ascertain that the meter in question was burnt due to fire emerging from adjacent meter in question installed nearby. Vol. It is possible that the meter in question could be burnt from such fire if the another meter is installed near the meter in question....".
28. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Supply Code and Performance Standards), Regulations, 2017 the meter in question has to be tested as per sub regulation (8) of Regulation, 32. The meter in question was required to be tested in an accredited laboratory notified by the commission for that purpose. In case of absence of notification the meter can be tested in any accredited laboratory. Accredited laboratory has been defined as a laboratory accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL). It has been brought out in the cross examination of PW-4 that the Truth Lab was not NABL accredited Lab. PW-4 has admitted CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 23 of 25 that they were not even aware about the standard and protocols of NABL accredited Lab. The relevant portion of cross examination is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"...The Truth Lab is not NABL Accredited Lab, but it is ISO certified. It is correct that I am not aware about the standard and protocols of the NABL with respect to testing of electricity meter as followed in NABL Accredited Labs. There exist no standard and protocols in writing in Truth Labs for testing of electricity meter in question as per my knowledge...".
29. Hence, it is proved on record that the Truth Lab where the meter in question was tested was not accredited laboratory, which raises serious doubt to the authenticity of the lab report.
30. After going through the entire record and the cross examination of PW-4, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the conclusion arrived in the lab report are based upon surmises and conjectures and does not have any scientific basis. There is inherent and apparent lacunas in the case of the complainant company, which has remained unexplained. The benefit of the same has to be given to the accused persons.
CONCLUSION:-
31. In view of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to hold that the complainant company has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons namely Ravi Aggarwal and Amit Bansal stand acquitted. They are CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 24 of 25 directed to file bail bonds u/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal Digitally signed formalities. JITENDRA by JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.01.08 17:02:55 +0530 Announced in the open court (JITENDRA SINGH) today i.e. on 08.01.2024 ASJ (Electricity)/ Distt. N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi CC No. 170/2019, TPDDL Vs. Ravi Aggarwal & others Page 25 of 25