Delhi District Court
Bses vs . Deshveer & Anr., Cc No. 265/13 Page No. 1 ... on 21 May, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAKESH TEWARI, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Complaint Case No. : 265/13
Police Station : Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
U/s : 135 of Electricity Act, 2003
Unique ID No. : 02406 RO0163892013
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
Having its registered Office at
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi110019
and its Corporate, Legal and Enforcement Cell at
Andrews Ganj, Next to Andrews Ganj Market,
New Delhi110049
Acting through Ashutosh Kumar,
(Authorised Representative)
...Complainant
Versus
1. Deshveer (Proclaimed Offender)
2. Smt. Kamlesh (In Judicial Custody)
R/o House No. F32, Ali Vihar,
Village Ali, New Delhi.
...Accused
Appearances : AR with Shri S.K. Alok, counsel for the complainant.
Accused Smt. Kamlesh produced from J.C. along with
Shri A.A. Khan, Ld. Amicus Curie.
Complaint instituted on : 29.06.2013
Judgment reserved on : 07.05.2014
Judgment pronounced on : 21.05.2014
BSES Vs. Deshveer & Anr., CC No. 265/13 Page no. 1 of 9
2
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 21.07.2010, the officers of the complainant company namely, Shri Radhey Shyam - Sr. Manager, Shri R.P. Singh - Sr. Shift Officer and Shri Arafat Ali - Diploma Holder alongwith officials of Delhi Police conducted inspection at the premises i.e. House No. F32, Ali Vihar (Near Pole No. SVR XPP 0322), Village Ali, New Delhi and accused Deshveer (proclaimed offender) and Smt. Kamlesh were found to be user of the said premises and accused were found indulged in direct theft of electricity by directly illegally tapping from BSES distribution box with the help of illegal wire and that accused were found using total connected load of 6.120 KWs for domestic purpose. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the material evidence i.e. illegal wire was also seized by the inspection team at the time of inspection. It is further mentioned in the said complaint that the inspection, load report and seizure memo were also prepared at the site and necessary videography was also conducted at the spot.
2. It is further mentioned in the complaint that it was a case of direct theft of electricity and theft bill as per DERC Regulations and tariff order was raised by the complainant for Rs.77,282/ with due BSES Vs. Deshveer & Anr., CC No. 265/13 Page no. 2 of 9 3 date as 09.08.2010 and same was served upon the accused but they failed to pay the said theft bill.
3. The case was fixed for presummoning evidence and accused were summoned to face the said allegations vide order dated 16.09.2013. Accused Smt. Kamlesh was produced from judicial custody, who is in J.C. in case FIR no. 351/2010 u/s. 302/34 IPC, PS Sarita Vihar and vide order dated 31.01.2014, notice U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C. for commission of offence punishable u/s. 135 the Electricity Act, 2003 was framed against accused Smt. Kamlesh to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on the ground that she was not committing any theft of electricity and that a false and fabricated case has been made out against her and that she is not liable to pay any loss or damage to the complainant company. Accused Deshveer was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 19.03.2014.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, three witnesses were produced, which have been discussed below.
5. The statement of the accused Smt. Kamlesh was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and accused pleaded her innocence and denied the BSES Vs. Deshveer & Anr., CC No. 265/13 Page no. 3 of 9 4 evidence as false and answered that she had no concern with the premises in question i.e. F32, Ali Vihar, near pole no. SVR XPP 0322, village Ali, New Delhi and that the owner of said premises was Bhim Singh, who has since expired and legal heirs of said Bhim Singh are still residing there and that they have falsely implicated her in the present case and that she is the shareholder in the premises in the question and that she was the second wife of late Shri Bhim Singh, however, she had no concern with the alleged theft of electricity in the premises in question. Accused further answered that she had no knowledge about any inspection being carried out as she was not residing at the premises in question. Accused further answered that she divorced Deshveer Singh on 04.05.1990 and she also brought divorce deed, which is Mark DA and that she was in livein relationship with Bhim Singh at house no. 157, Village Aali, Badarpur, New Delhi and she brought a document Mark DB to this effect and that she married to said late Shri Bhim Singh on 06.08.2003 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Haridwar and marriage certificate to this effect was Mark DC. However, the accused did not opt to lead defence evidence.
6. I have heard the counsel for the complainant and counsel for the accused, Shri A.A. Khan, Amicus Curie Advocate. I have also BSES Vs. Deshveer & Anr., CC No. 265/13 Page no. 4 of 9 5 perused the record including the CD of videograpy displayed on the computer screen of the court.
7. PW1 Shri Radhey Shyam was the Senior Manager of complainant company, who deposed that on 21.07.2010 at around 12.50 p.m., he along with Shri R.P. Singh, Shri Arafat Nabi, Shri Ranjan - Lineman and Shri Sumer - videographer visited and inspected the premises bearing house no. F32, Aali Vihar, Aali Village, New Delhi and that on reaching the said premises, no meter was found installed at site and that the users namely Shri Deshveer and Smt. Kamlesh, which was stated by one girl, who was present there, were found indulged in direct theft of electricity by directly tapping from BSES mains with the help of illegal wires. PW1 further deposed that they assessed the total connected load of the premises which was found to be approx. 6.1 KWs for domestic purpose and that they removed and seized the illegal wires from the spot. PW1 proved the inspection report, meter details, load report and seizure memo as Ex. CW2/1, Ex. CW2/2, Ex. CW2/3 and Ex. CW2/4. PW1 further deposed that they offered the said documents to the said girl to sign and receive but she refused the same. PW1 further identified the case property i.e. two core black colour aluminium wire of size 6 mm.sq. and another wire of size 4 BSES Vs. Deshveer & Anr., CC No. 265/13 Page no. 5 of 9 6 mm.sq. and in length approx. 5 meters and 3.5 meters approx. collectively as Ex. P2. The witness correctly identifies the said case property as which were seized from the spot. PW1 also identified the CD of videography as Ex. CW2/6.
8. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, PW1 replied that neither accused Deshveer (proclaimed absconder) nor accused Kamlesh was present at the spot at the time of inspection and that the girl, who was present at the spot, informed that name of her mother was Kamlesh and that of father was Deshveer. PW1 answered that they had recorded the name of the accused as told by the said girl, however, they did not verify the same from other persons. PW1 could not admit or deny the suggestion as to whether accused Deshveer being the husband of accused Kamlesh, was divorced from each other about 25 years ago. PW1 further could not admit or deny the suggestion as to whether after the said divorce, accused Kamlesh had left the premises in question or that she married to one Bheem Singh, who constructed the premises in question. PW1 further could not admit or deny the suggestion as to whether accused Smt. Kamlesh got married with said Shri Bheem Singh before the Registrar of Marriage. BSES Vs. Deshveer & Anr., CC No. 265/13 Page no. 6 of 9 7
9. PW2 Shri R.P. Singh in his examination in chief, narrated the same facts, as deposed by PW1 and his cross examination is adverbetting as that of PW1.
10. PW3 Shri Ashutosh Kumar, A.R. of the complainant company, is a formal witness, who proved his GPA Ex.CW1/2 and he further proved the complaint as Ex.CW1/1 and in his cross examination on behalf of the accused, he admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the case.
11. During the course of trial, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that he has no objection if the theft bill Ex.CW2/5 and the videography Ex.CW2/3 be read in evidence as it is and in view of the said submission of the Ld. Defence Counsel, said two documents are being read in evidence for the purpose of this judgment.
12. This is an admitted case of PW1 and PW2 that neither the accused Deshveer, the proclaimed offender, nor accused Smt. Kamlesh was present in the premises in question at the time of inspection and their alleged daughter was present, who informed that Deshveer was her father and accused Kamlesh was her mother BSES Vs. Deshveer & Anr., CC No. 265/13 Page no. 7 of 9 8 and the said witnesses recorded the names of the both the accused in the documents as told to them by the said daughter of the accused. Admittedly, the said daughter of the accused is neither an accused nor a witness in the present case.
13. On the other hand, accused Smt. Kamlesh said that she was divorcee from Deshveer Singh and divorce took place on 04.05.1990 vide document Mark DA and after that she started living with one Bhim Singh at house no. 157, Village Ali, Badarpur, New Delhi and document to that effect is Mark DB and thereafter she got married with said Bhim Singh on 06.08.2003 vide document Mark DC and said Bhim Singh has expired now. Although, the said documents placed on record on behalf of the said accused, may not be considered for the purposes of civil law, but for the purpose for the present criminal case complaint, they are relevant as the accused is trying to establish her defence by way of said documents. As per said documents, the second husband of the accused Smt. Kamlesh namely Bhim Singh was residing somewhere else and not in the premises in question.
14. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant has conclusively established the link of the accused BSES Vs. Deshveer & Anr., CC No. 265/13 Page no. 8 of 9 9 Smt. Kamleseh with the premises in question on the date of inspection. Hence, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused Smt. Kamlesh and she is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Her PB & SB are hereby cancelled and discharged. The file may be revived, as and when, accused Deshveer, who is now absconding, is brought to books. The file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open ( RAKESH TEWARI )
court on 21.05.2014 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
BSES Vs. Deshveer & Anr., CC No. 265/13 Page no. 9 of 9