Delhi District Court
State vs . Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. on 30 September, 2013
FIR No. 09/04
Police Station: Punjabi Bagh
U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC
State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN KUMAR ARYA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT
(ELECTRICITY), TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
SC No : 02/11
FIR No : 09/04
Police Station : Punjabi Bagh
U/S : 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC
Unique case ID No : 02401R1267062006
State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc.
a): Name of the complainant : Sh. D. C. Sharma, B. M. (Enf)
b): Date of the commission of :
offence
c): Name of the accused : (i) Dharam Pal Sharma
S/o Sh. Surajmal Sharma
R/o House No. 639, PktI,
Paschim Puri, Delhi (Dropped vide
order dated 29.04.2011)
(ii) Ayodhya Prasad
Sh. Ghsita Ram,
R/o House No.88, PktI
Paschim Puri, Delhi (Dropped
vide order dated 29.04.2011)
(iii) Jagan Nath
S/o Sh.Bodhan Singh
R/o House No.231, PktI
Page 1 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya)
ASJ / Special Court (Electricity)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013
FIR No. 09/04
Police Station: Punjabi Bagh
U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC
State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc.
Paschim Puri, Delhi (Dropped
vide order dated 29.04.2011)
(iv) Shesh Nath Mishra,
S/o Sh. Ambika Prasad Mishra
R/o A1/225, Sector - 6, Rohini
Delhi.
And
(v) Pragat Singh
S/o Late Sh. Gurmuk Singh
R/o T72 / A, Vishnu Garden,
Delhi.
d): Offence complained of : 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC
e): Plea of accused no. 4 and 5 : Pleaded not guilty
f): Date of Institution : 30.12.2006
g): Judgment reserved on : 23.09.2013
h): Date of Judgment : 30.09.2013
i): Final Order : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
1. The law was set up in motion in this case, through a anonymous letter written to Vigilance Awareness, received in the office of Anti Corruption Branch, Govt. Of National Territory of Delhi on 25.11.2003 (Marked as PW 3/I). It was stated in the letter that one person namely Mishra Ji having scooter no. DL4ST 3034 was Page 2 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. involved in reversing the meters of different consumers in Narela, Udyog Vihar and DSIDC and was making the loss to the BSES, complainant company (to be referred as "company" hereinafter). The matter was referred to DCP, Crime Delhi for investigation.
2. The Additional Commissioner Police, Crime Branch referred this matter to SI Shalender Tomar for investigation on 27.12.2003. On 30.12.2013, he along with other police officials and officers of the company organized a raid and apprehended Shesh Nath along with his scooter bearing no. DL4ST 3034 near Sunder Apartment, Paschim Vihar at about 2:50 PM. On his search, some instruments namely Pechcus, Screwdriver, Paint, tape, drill machines etc. were found in his scooter. A Kalandra 41.1 (A) Cr.P.C. was prepared by him and accused was arrested. Thereafter accused Shesh Nath made a disclosure statement to the police in which it was stated that he was indulging in stopping the reading of meters by making hole in it for different consumers (Ex. PW 3/A) but in case of technical fault he used to get it repaired from one Pragat Singh by taking the meter to his shop.
3. On his disclosure, a raid was conducted at T72A, Vishnu Garden where accused Pragat Singh was running the electricity Page 3 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. meter repairing shop. Two electro mechanical meters belonging to erstwhile DVB were recovered from his shop.
4. Further raids were conducted at 88 A, 231 and A639 Paschim Puri where they recovered the tampered meters in these premises belonging to Ayodhya Prasad, Jagan Nath and Dharam Pal Sharma. Inspection reports in this respect were prepared by the team which are Ex. PW 3/C. A charge sheet u/s135, 150 Electricity Act, 379 IPC was filed against all the accused. However, accused Dharam Pal, Ayodhya Prasad and Jagan Nath settled the matter with complainant company and produced "No Dues Certificate". Proceedings against these accused were dropped by my ld. predecessor on 29.04.2011.
5. Notices u/s 138 & 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against accused (Shesh Nath) and u/s 135 & 138 were framed against accused (Pragat Singh).
6. Prosecution in support of its case examined 7 witnesses namely PW 1 SI Sultan Singh, PW 2 Sh. D. C. Sharma, PW 3 Inspector Shalender Tomar, PW 4 Sh. Santosh Giri, PW 5 Sh. Parveen Sondhi, PW 6 SI Jaibeer and PW 7 Sh. Omvir Singh.
PW 1 SI Sultan Singh, deposed that on 01.01.2004, he Page 4 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. received the ruqqa through Ram Ratan sent by SI Shalender Kumar. He registered the FIR Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signatures at point A. PW 2 Sh. D. C. Sharma, deposed that on 30.12.2003 he was posted as a Business Manager, Enforcement. On receiving the complaint from Crime Branch regarding fraudulent abstraction of energy in West Delhi, he sent his team consisting of Sh. Parveen and Sh. Omvir with the police party for conducting raid / inspection. On the basis of these inspections, he made a complaint / action taken report to ACP Crime Branch on 31.12.2003, which is Ex. PW 2/ A. PW 3 Inspector Shalender Tomar, deposed that on 27.12.2003, he was posted as Sub Inspector at AKS Crime Branch and upon receiving the complaint that one person having scooter number DL4ST 3034 was indulging in theft of electricity. He developed the information, went with police personnels and officials of the BSES at Sunder Apartment, Paschim Vihar at about 02:50 PM. He met Shesh Nath there alongwith scooter bearing no. DL4ST 3034 and interrogated him. On search some instruments namely Pechcus, Screwdriver, Paint, tape, drill machines etc. were found in his scooter. Accused Shesh Nath made a disclosure statement Ex. PW 3/A which bear his signatures at point A, in which it was stated that he was Page 5 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. indulging in tampering of meters and in case of technical fault he used to get it repaired from from one Pragat Singh.
Upon his disclosure, a raid was conducted at T72A, Vishnu Garden, where accused Pragat Singh was running the electricity meter repairing shop. Two electro mechanical meters belonging to Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) were recovered from his shop and these were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 3/B. Further raids were conducted at plot nos. 88 A, 231 and A639 Paschim Puri where they recovered the meters tampered by accused Shesh Nath. Inspection report was prepared by the IO and officials of complainant company (Ex. PW 3/C). The raided premises were also photographed. The instruments and scooter were recovered vide seizure memos (Ex. PW 3/D) and (Ex. PW 3/E). A kalandra U/S 41.1 (a) Cr. P.C. was prepared at site (Ex. PW 3/G). All documents bear his signatures at point A. On the basis of the complaint, (Ex. PW 2/A), he prepared ruqqa (Ex. PW 3/H) and sent it through constable Ram Ratan for registration of FIR which was registered on 01.01.2004.
PW 4 Sh. Santosh Giri, took the photographs of different places at the instance of IO. He took about 25 photographs and Page 6 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. negatives of the photograph have already been submitted to Sh. Bhushan. Photographs Ex. PW 4 / A1 to Ex. PW 4 / A25 and negatives were proved as Ex. PW 4/B collectively.
PW 5 Sh. Parveen Sondhi, on 30.12.2003 was posted at Enforcement West. He along with crime branch team, Sh. Om Vir went to the Vishnu Garden at T72, and Paschim Puri at Flat no.231, 639, A88. He found two mechanical meters of DVB lying at the shop and prepared the report Ex. PW 3/C bearing his signature at point B. He prepared joint inspection report Ex. PW 5/A bearing his signature at point A. PW 6 SI Jaibeer, on 30.12.2003 was posted at Crime Branch, Anti Kidnapping Section, Dev Nagar. On that day, he along with Inspector R. K. Gulia, SI Shalender Tomer, other staff members and staff of BSES went to Paschim Vihar at Sunder Apartments where they met accused Shesh Nath who was interrogated by SI Shalender Tomer. Accused took them to the T72 A, Vishnu Garden, Delhi belonging to the shop of accused Pargat Singh.
On that day Pargat Singh was not arrested then accused Shesh Nath took them to H.No. A88, H.No. 639A, Pocket1, and H.No. 231 Pocket3, Paschim Puri. He signed the disclosure Page 7 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. statement and other search memos of accused Shesh Nath.
PW 7 Sh. Omvir Singh, deposed that on 30.12.2003, he was posted as Enforcement officer (Trainee) in BRPL. He along with police officers and other staff of BSES went to the premises T72 A, Vishnu Garden, Delhi which is the shop of accused Pargat Singh. Two electricity meters belonging to BSES were found in his shop. The meters installed at the shop of Pragat Singh was found tampered. Inspection report (Ex. PW 3/C), bear his signatures at point C. Thereafter they raided H. No. A88, H. No. 639A, Pocket1 and H. No. 231 Pocket3, Paschim Puri where meters of those premises were also found tampered. Inspection reports of these meters were also prepared with connected load, which is Ex. PW5/A, which bear his signatures at point B. During cross examination, he admitted that team did not seize the meter.
7. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused no. 4 and 5 denied the allegations made against them. Accused Shesh Nath stated that he was called at Dev Nagar, Crime Branch and was implicated on 27.12.2003. Accused Pragat Singh also denied that DVB meters were recovered from his shop or he was involved in theft of electricity.
Page 8 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya)
ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc.
8. Counsel for accused no. 4 and 5 argued that the present case was not filed through a duly Authorized Officer of the company as per Section 151 of the Act, so the cognizance taken by this court was without jurisdiction. No independent person was joined at the time of inspection of the raided premises which creates serious doubt on these inspections.
Statement of PW 5 and 6 are contradictory as PW 5 stated in his cross examination that at T72 accused Pragat Singh and his wife were present whereas PW 6 stated that only Pragat Singh was present. PW 5 admitted that the signatures of wife of accused Pragat Singh were not obtained on inspection report. PW 6 stated that accused Pragat Singh was not arrested at T72, Vishnu Garden. No explanation has been put forth by prosecution as to why the accused was not arrested by police. Statement of PW 5 and PW 7 are also contradictory as PW 5 stated in his cross examination that joint inspection report was prepared at the office of the Crime Branch and as per PW 7 these were prepared at T72, Vishnu Garden.
Prosecution has not examined the constable Ram Ratan who took the ruqqa to SI Sultan Singh for registration of FIR. Kalandra was prepared on 30.12.2003 and FIR was registered on 01.01.2004. Page 9 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya)
ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. Case property was not sealed in any manner. Employees of company to prove the ownership were also not examined by the prosecution. Prosecution had placed the carbon copy of joint inspection report only. As the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons, so they were entitled to be acquitted.
9. Per contra, Addl. PP for State has argued that accused no.4 Shesh Nath was indulging in tampering of meter and in case of serious fault he used to get it repaired from from accused no. 5 Pragat Singh. The testimonies of prosecution's witnesses remained unblemished and prosecution has proved its case against the accused no.4 and 5 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, both accused persons are liable to be convicted in this case.
10. I have gone through the ocular / documentary evidence adduced on record and arguments advanced at bar by counsel for parties.
The argument of the counsel for the accused that the present complaint should have been filed by a Authorized Officer has to be seen in the light of Section 151 of the Act which reads as:
Cognizance of Offences: No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing Page 10 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose.
11. The complaint in this case under this Act has been filed by the licensee which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, so the same should have been filed through a duly authorized person. No resolution passed by Board of Directors of the company has been placed on record which could show that Sh. D. C. Sharma (B.M, Enforcement) was duly authorized to institute and prosecute this complaint. In the absence of same, the company has failed to prove on record that the present complaint was filed by a duly authorized person of the company.
12. It is not brought on record as to who was the Authorized officer associated in the inspection / raid as per the section 135 (2)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act. Sh. Parveen Sondhi (JE) and Sh Omvir Singh (Enforcement Trainee) were below the rank of Assistant Engineer / Assistant Manger at the time of raid, so as per notification No. F.11 (93)/2003/Power/1566 dated 17.05.2005, issued by order and in the name of Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, they Page 11 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. cannot be called as Authorized Officer as per the Act.
13. PW 5 Parveen Sondhi stated in his cross examination that at T72 accused Pragat Singh and his wife were present whereas PW 6 SI Jaibeer stated that only Pragat Singh was present. Disclosure statement of Pragat singh was recorded on 25.10.2010 by IO Rajbeer Singh, who was not examined in this case. First of all it is difficult to believe such a disclosure recorded by police nearly 7 years after the date of alleged recovery. This disclosure statement clearly establishes that Pragat Singh was not interrogated before or after the raid was conducted at his shop. This disclosure statement is clearly hit by section 27 of the Evidence Act and police had all the knowledge of the recoveries which were already made. Even in this statement accused has not given meter numbers which were allegedly recovered by the police on 30.12.2003. The presence of accused Pragat Singh on 30.12.2003 is doubtful, it is no where in the judicial file as to when he was arrested. The alleged recovery made from accused Pragat Singh by the police seems to be doubtful.
14. PW 2 admitted that he did not personally visit the site. He did not have personal knowledge of the tampering of the meters. PW 3 admitted that Sunder Apartments were inhabited by number of people Page 12 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. but nobody joined the investigation at that time. He cannot tell the number of houses from where he called residents. The furd (Ex. PW 3/D) which was prepared by him was not signed by the officials of the BSES. Public persons were not made as a witness at the time of disclosure even the members of the BSES team did not sign it. Photographer who accompanied the team did not sign the recovery memo on the seizure memo. He did not know whether the user of 231, A639 and 88A Paschim Puri were made as an accused or not.
15. He did not know that meter bearing no. E8191282 and E879156 were allotted in whose name and the fact that these meters were belonging to their BSES company, who told to him by officials of the company. No documents in respect of recovered meters were shown to him. He admitted that recoveries made from the accused were not sealed by him.
16. PW 3 conceded that he cannot tell the name of the places from where he took the photographs. Police official never recorded his statement after inspection. PW 5 admitted that Ex. PW 5/A is the photocopy of the original. He could not tell about the original copy of Ex. PW 5/A and the exact period in which mechanical meter were replaced by electronic meters by his company. No neighbours from Page 13 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. the T72 were called by him to join the proceedings. Joint inspection report was prepared at the office of the Crime Branch.
17. PW 6 admitted that team did not call any person from the residential houses at Sunder Apartment. The tools were seized without sealing the same. They did not call any public person at T72 A to become as a witness. He did not remember whether IO had issued any receipt of the seizure of the article. He did not know the owner / occupier of house no. A88, 639A, Pocket1, and H.No. 231 Pocket3, Paschim Puri. He could not tell the floors where abovesaid premises were located. No documents were prepared and no statement was recorded at Pashim Puri.
18. PW 3 Shalender Tomar, has filed the kalandra 41.1 (a) Cr.P.C. against the accused and he has recorded the disclosure statement of Shesh Nath. He admitted that officials of the BSES, PW 2 Sh. D. C. Sharma, PW 4 Sh. Santosh Giri and PW 5 Sh. Parveen Sondhi were with him during the time of raid, however, they have not signed the disclosure statement or the recovery memos prepared by him in which alleged recoveries are shown from accused Shesh Nath. In a way, officials of the company were independent witness assisting the police in the raid. The non signing of these witnesses on the Page 14 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. above noted documents make these documents doubtful.
19. I have gone through the disclosure made by accused Shesh Nath (Ex PW 3/A). The basis of this case is an anonymous letter written against one Mishra Ji who was reversing the meters for industrial consumers, whereas as per this disclosure accused pointed out only 3 domestic consumers whose meters were allegedly tampered by him. The complaint was received by police on 25.11.2003 but prosecution failed to show as to what kind of investigation was made before arresting the accused on 30.12.2003. The period between 25.11.2003 i.e the date of receiving the complaint and the arresting of accused on 30.12.2003 remains unexplained. The disclosure statement made to the police by accused Shesh Nath does not inspire confidence which was not attested by any official of BSES or of any independent person.
20. The manner of arrest of accused Shesh Nath near Sunder Apartments is also doubtful. No public person were joined although it was a residential area. It is hard to believe that he reached straightway to the spot of arrest without any concrete information.
Despite receipt of an information on 25.11.2003, no FIR was registered at any police station in this case, before pursuing the Page 15 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. investigation. Even on 30.12.2003, when accused was apprehended PW 3 could have got the FIR registered at any police station under his jurisdiction. The FIR was recorded on 01.01.2004 at 05:05 PM, there is delay of almost two days that remained unexplained on part of prosecution making the case of prosecution doubtful.
21. Prosecution has not examined the constable Ram Ratan who brought the ruqqa from spot and gave it to SI Sultan Singh for registration of FIR. It is very strange as why kalandra u/s 41.1 (a) Cr.P.C. was prepared on 30.12.2003 whereas FIR could have been recorded as police had the prior information of theft of electricity. There was no necessity of a written complaint from BSES for recording the FIR. The manner of investigation by police is full of, ifs, buts and doubts. Case property, allegedly recovered by PW 3 was not sealed by him putting further cloud on the case. Prosecution has produced only carbon copies of joint inspection reports.
22. As per section 151 A of Electricity Act, for the purpose of investigation of an offence punishable under this Act, the police officer shall have all the process as provided in chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Broadly speaking, the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable on the investigation under this Act, however, Page 16 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. police fail to comply the provisions of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C and did not join any respectable person from the locality when the properties were recovered from the accused persons.
23. The complaint dated 31.12.2003 written by Business Manager to ACP, Crime Branch, Police Post, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which was converted into a ruqqa by the police and sent it for registration of that FIR. In the normal parlance, ruqqa is sent, as per police rules, by the IO from the spot of incident. In the present case, accused was arrested on 30.12.2003 at about 2:50 PM from Sunder Apartment, Paschim Vihar, and two meters were removed from the shop of Pragat Singh, it was incumbent upon the police to sent the ruqqa from the spot itself for registration of FIR after accused Shesh Nath had already made disclosure of involvement in tampering of meter. The non sending of ruqqa at the particular time to the police for registration of FIR creates doubts in the present case.
PW 3 in his deposition has given the number of two meters recovered from the shop of Pragat Singh, however, he did not care about to know in whose names these meters were allotted, the name of its registered consumer and from which zone, store or department these were issued and to whom. As per case of Page 17 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. prosecution these meters, were given to Pragat Singh by Shesh Nath. The police fail to interrogate accused Shesh Nath on the aspect as to from where he has taken these meters and who were their owners / registered consumers. The examination of these registered consumer in the court was essential to know about the ownership of these two meters. This was a serious flaw on part of prosecution by not proving these facts, which they were required to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
24. I have gone through seizure memo Ex. PW 3/B prepared by PW 3 Shalender Tomar. An endorsement was made by PW 5 Sh. Parveen Sondhi on this memo "the record of purchase of these meter to be confirmed by the MTD department". No evidence was led by Prosecution to prove the record of purchase of these meters.
There is a clear cloud over the arrest of accused Pragat Singh and his presence at T72, Vishnu Garden, when the raid was conducted. PW 7 deposed that Pragat Singh and Shesh Nath went to paschim Puri for the raid whereas PW 5 did not say so. And as per memo placed on record Pragat Singh was arrested on 25.10.2010. It is a muddy state of affairs which does not give a clear picture about Pragat Singh. Accused Pragat Singh admittedly was having a meter Page 18 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya) ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. repairing shop and prosecution has failed to specify whether such work was illegal as per law.
25. It was alleged that one tampered meter was installed at the shop of Pragat Singh in which he was found as user. This meter was in the name of one Sh. Sukhwinder Singh. First of all, he was not examined by police / prosecution and personal hearing was also not given either to Sukhwinder Singh or to Pragat Singh which was mandatory as per regulation Regulation 26 of The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Performance and Standards - Metering and Billing) Regulations, 2002.
Secondly, tampered meter was not removed from the shop of accused Pragat Singh. In view of the same, allegation of theft cannot be made against him.
26. In view of the foregoing reasons, the company has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused no. (iv) (Shesh Nath) and accused no. (v) (Pragat Singh) are hereby acquitted. Bail bond of both the accused are canceled and sureties are discharged. Amount, if any, deposited by the accused persons as a condition for bail be released by the company after expiry of period of appeal. Page 19 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya)
ASJ / Special Court (Electricity) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013 FIR No. 09/04 Police Station: Punjabi Bagh U/S 135 / 150 Electricity Act & 379 IPC State Vs. Dharam Pal Sharma Etc. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Arun Kumar Ayra)
ASJ/Special Court (Elect.)
Tis Hazari/Delhi/30.09.2013
Page 20 of 20 (Arun Kumar Arya)
ASJ / Special Court (Electricity)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi / 30.09.2013