Delhi District Court
State vs . Bhoop Singh & Etc. on 30 November, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NAROTTAM KAUSHAL, ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE,
THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 112/12
PS : R.K.Puram, New Delhi
U/S : 135 of Electricity Act, 2003
State Vs. Bhoop Singh & etc.
a Name of the complainant :Sh.Himanshu Aggarwal - Asstt. Manager
(Enforcement, BSES Rajdhani
Power Ltd., Andrews Ganj, N.D)
b Date of commission of : 12.10.2012
Offence
c Name of the accused :1Bhoop Singh
2Toni
3Smt. Vimla
H.No.247, Sec.6, Ekta Vihar,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi22
d Offence complained of :135 of Electricity Act, 2003
e Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f Order pronounced on : 30.11.2012
ORDER
1 Accused persons Bhoop Singh, Toni & Vimla have been charge sheeted by PSR.K.Puram for the offence punishable u/sec.135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').
2.1 FIR Ex.PW1/F has been lodged on a written complaint made by Himanshu Aggarwal - Assistant Manager, BRPL. It is the case of the complainant that a team of its officers inspected at H.No.247, Sec.6, Ekta Vihar, R.K.Puram, New Delhi22 on 10.05.2012, which was used and occupied by accused persons Bhoop Singh, Toni & Smt. Vimla. At the time of inspection, premises was consuming electricity by directly tapping from BSES service State Vs. Bhoop Singh & Anr. Page 1 of 3 2 cable through illegal wire. No meter was found installed at the site. Connected load was assessed at 1.47 KW for domestic use. Inspection report, load report and seizure memo were prepared. Videography of the inspection was carried out. A theft bill of Rs.21,502/ was raised. On failure of the accused persons to pay the theft bill, complaint was made to the PS - R.K.Puram for registration of FIR.
2.2 On the basis of complaint aforesaid, FIR bearing no.112/12 Ex.PW1/F was registered and after investigation Chalan was submitted.
3 As per provisions of section 154 (3) of the Act, procedure for summary trial was adopted.
4 Notice of accusation was framed against the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. They, however, stated that they had paid the entire theft bill and the complainant company had issued a no dues certificate to them.
5 Prosecution in support of its case, examined complainant Himanshu Aggarwal - Assistant Manager, BRPL (PW1). PW1 proved the inspection and the documents prepared at the site. He also proved his complaint & the FIR lodged on the basis of his complaint. During cross examination, no dues certificate issued by the complainant company was confronted to the witness. He admitted the genuineness and issuance of said certificate. Remaining prosecution evidence was closed by order of the court. For ready reference order closing prosecution evidence is reproduced herein below: "PW1 examined, crossexamined & discharged. It is noticed that PW1, who is the Authorized Officer of the complainant company, in his crossexamination has admitted issuance of no dues certificate.
At this stage, counsel for the accused persons has submitted that no useful purpose shall be served by recording the evidence of remaining witnesses, when the complainant itself has issued a no dues certificate to the accused.
State Vs. Bhoop Singh & Anr. Page 2 of 3 3I have heard the counsel for the accused persons & find force in his arguments.
Prosecution in the present case has been instituted on a complaint filed by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., through its authorised officer Himanshu Aggarwal - Sr. Manager, for the reason that its theft bill amounting to Rs. 21,502/ had not been paid by accused persons Bhoop Singh, Toni & Vimla. Now, that the entire theft bill has been paid by the accused persons and no dues certificate issued by the complainant, the cause of action for filing the complaint does not exist any more. Proceeding with the trial and recording the testimonies of the PWs shall only result in futile exercise involving wastage of court time as well as time of public functionaries who were associated in inspection & investigation. I, therefore, find this is an appropriate case where powers u/sec.258 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and prosecution case can be closed."
6 The accused persons having paid the entire claim raised by the complainant in its theft bill, no useful purpose shall be served by continuing with the trial. It is accepted practice in private complaints filed by the complainant company that matters are settled and complaints are withdrawn on the accused persons paying up of the bill as per the settlement arrived at. In the present case, accused persons have paid the entire theft bill, leaving no cause of action for the complainant to pursue the complaint. Its claim has been fully satisfied by the accused persons. Continuing with the trial will only amount to wastage of court time and harassment of the accused persons. Exercising power u/sec.258 Cr.P.C., the proceedings are stopped without pronouncing any judgment. This shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused persons. Personal bonds & surety bonds of the accused persons are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
File be consigned to Record room.
Announced in the open (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
court on 30.11.2012 ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
State Vs. Bhoop Singh & Anr. Page 3 of 3
4
SC No.15/12
FIR No.112/12
30112012
Present Ld. Addl. PP for the State
AR with Sh.S.K.Alok, proxy counsel for
Sh.Rishab Raj Jain, counsel for the complainant Accused persons on bail with Sh.Radhey Shyam, Adv.
PW1 examined, crossexamined & discharged. It is noticed that PW1, who is the Authorized Officer of the complainant company, in his cross examination has admitted issuance of no dues certificate.
At this stage, counsel for the accused persons has submitted that no useful purpose shall be served by recording the evidence of remaining witnesses, when the complainant itself has issued a no dues certificate to the accused.
I have heard the counsel for the accused persons & find force in his arguments.
Prosecution in the present case has been instituted on a complaint filed by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., through its authorised officer Himanshu Aggarwal - Sr. Manager, for the reason that its theft bill amounting to Rs. 21,502/ had not been paid by accused persons Bhoop Singh, Toni & Vimla. Now, that the entire theft bill has been paid by the accused persons and no dues certificate issued by the complainant, the cause of action for filing the complaint does not exist any more. Proceeding with the trial and recording the testimonies of the PWs shall only result in futile exercise involving wastage of court time as well as time of public functionaries who were associated in inspection & investigation. I, therefore, find this is an appropriate case where powers u/sec.258 Cr.P.C. can be exercised and prosecution case can be closed.
Vide separate order announced today, the proceedings are stopped without pronouncing any judgment. This shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused persons.
Bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. File be consigned to record room.
( NAROTTAM KAUSHAL ) ASJ/SPL.COURT(ELECT.)SOUTH SAKET COURTS/30112012 State Vs. Bhoop Singh & Anr. Page 4 of 3