Delhi District Court
State vs Saroj on 13 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, ELECTRICITY COURT, DISTT. NORTH
WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-000838-2023
SC No. 116/2023
FIR No. 1108/2021
P.S. Mangolpuri
U/S. 135 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003
STATE VS. SAROJ
1. Date of Commission of Offence : 06.09.2019
2. Date of institution of the case : 31.01.2023
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. M.K. Singh, Head of
Group CEG, UP Samaj
Building Parwana Road,
Pitampura, Delhi.
4. Name of accused,
parentage & address. : Smt. Saroj W/o Sh.
Rajan, R/o; Jhuggi No. N-
780/104, Parwana Road,
Dera Gazi Khan, Tarun
Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi.
5. Offence complained or proved :135 of Electricity Act,
2003.
6. Plea of Accused persons :Pleaded not guilty.
7. Final Order :Convicted.
8. Date of Reserving judgment :13.12.2023
9. Date of Final Order :13.12.2023
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 1 of 15
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
1. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that on 06.09.2019, at about 11.40 AM a team of Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'TPDDL'), visited the premises i.e. Jhuggi No. N-780/104, Parwana Road, Dera Gazi Khan, Pitampura, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Premises'). During inspection one meter bearing no. 41186817, vide CA No. 60011783838 was found installed at the premises of the accused, but the supply of the meter was disconnected. Accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by taking direct hooking of phase, neutral from tyco box of LT (hereinafter referred to as Low Tension) network at TPDDL Pole No. 504-26/26/1/2/1 by using illegal PVC aluminum wire, which was further connected to the internal wiring of the premises.
2. At the time of inspection, accused was present at site, who refused to sign or accept the inspection report. Total load of 0.988 KW was found connected at site for domestic purpose. Inspection report, which is Ex. PW2/A was prepared at site. Thereafter, illegal wires, which were being used for theft was removed and seized, vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW2/B. Site sketch was also prepared at site, which is Ex. PW2/C.
3. The photographer Sh. Anil Rawat had taken 19 photographs, which are Ex. PW4/C-1 to Ex. PW4/C-19 at the time of FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 2 of 15 inspection and conducted the videography. The Compact Disc (hereinafter referred to as 'CD') of the photographs and videography, which is Ex. PW4/B and the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter, the police complaint, which is Ex. PW1/A was filed and accordingly, the present First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR') was got registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as '2003, Act') in the Police Station:
Mangolpuri (hereinafter referred to as 'PS').
CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSED:-
4. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 was filed against the accused Manni by the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'IO'). The charge under Section 135 of The Electricity Act, 2003 was framed against the accused, wherein she pleads not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
5. PW-1 Sh. M.K. Singh (Complainant), who deposed that on 12.09.2019, he filed a complaint in PS: Mangolpuri for lodging of an FIR Under Section 135 of Electricity Act against the accused Smt. Saroj W/o Sh. Rajan on the basis of inspection conducted by the inspection team of the complainant company on FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 3 of 15 06.09.2019 at the premises of the accused. The complaint is Ex. PW 1/A, bearing his signature at point A. He deposed that alongwith the complaint he has also submitted in the PS original bill, original inspection report, original seizure memo, original site map/site sketch, original certificate under section 65-B (4) (c) of the Evidence Act. One CD and 19 Colored Photographs.
6. PW-2 Sh. Himanshu Sharma (Zonal Manager), who deposed that on 06.09.2019, he as a team leader alongwith Sh. Hardeep Singh Dagar and photographer Sh. Anil, Zonal Staff, ESF Staff inspected the premises of the accused. He deposed that on inspection, they found that a CA No. 60011783838, Meter No. 41186817 was installed at the premises of the accused, but the supply of the meter/electricity was disconnected and the accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by taking direct hooking of phase, neutral from tyco Box of LT network at TPDDL Pole No. 504-26/26/1/2/1 by using illegal aluminum wire, which was found further connected to the internal wiring of the accused premises. He further deposed that the connected load was found to be 0.988 KW for domestic purpose. Inspection was conducted in the presence of the accused and the inspection report, which is Ex. PW 2/A, bearing his signature at point A and B was prepared at the time of the inspection. They tried to hand over a copy of the inspection report to the accused, but she refused to sign or accept the same. He further deposed that the accused did not allow them to paste the copy of the FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 4 of 15 inspection report on the wall. They seized the accessible illegal PVC black colored aluminum wire in two pieces of approximately 20 meter in length, vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW2/B, bearing his signature at point A and B. They tried to hand over a copy of the seizure memo to the accused, but she refused to sign or accept the same. He further deposed that the accused did not allow them to paste the copy of the seizure memo on the wall. A site sketch, which is Ex. PW 2/C, bearing his signature at point A was also prepared at the time of inspection at site. The photographer took photographs and made videography of the inspection and seizure.
7. PW-3 Sh. H.S. Dagar (Senior Executive), who deposed that on 06.09.2019, he alongwith team leader Sh. Himanshu Sharma and photographer Sh. Anil, Zonal Staff, ESF Staff inspected the premises of the accused. On inspection, they found that a CA No. 60011783838, Meter No. 41186817 was installed at the premises of the accused, but the supply of the meter/electricity was disconnected and the accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by taking direct hooking of phase, neutral from tyco Box of LT network at TPDDL Pole No. 504-26/26/1/2/1 by using illegal aluminum wire, which was found further connected to the internal wiring of the accused premises. The connected load was found to be 0.988 KW for domestic purpose. He further deposed that inspection was conducted in the presence of the accused and the inspection report, which is Ex. PW 2/A bearing his signature at point C and D was prepared at the FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 5 of 15 time of the inspection at the site. They tried to hand over a copy of the inspection report to the accused, but she refused to sign or accept the same. The accused did not allow them to paste the copy of the inspection report on the wall. He further deposed that they seized the accessible illegal PVC black colored aluminum wire in two pieces of approximately 20 meter in length vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW 2/B, bearing his signature at point C. They tried to hand over a copy of the seizure memo to the accused, but she refused to sign or accept the same. The accused did not allow them to paste the copy of the seizure memo on the wall. A site sketch, which is Ex. PW2/C was also prepared at the time of inspection at the site. The photographer took photographs and made videography of the inspection and seizure.
8. PW-4 Sh. Anil Rawat (photographer) who deposed that on 06.09.2019, he alongwith team leader Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Sh. Hardeep Singh Dagar inspected the premises of the accused. He was working as photographer on the said date of inspection. He has taken photographs as per instructions received from Mr. Himanshu Sharma and Sh. Hardeep Singh Dagar. He had taken a total of 19 photographs during the said inspection. He has filed a certificate u/s. 65-B, which is Ex. PW4/A. He had also prepared the CD, which is Ex. PW4/B. The photographs taken during inspection, which are Ex. PW4/C1 to Ex. PW4/C19.
9. PW-5 HC Samundar, who deposed that on FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 6 of 15 30.11.2022, he was posted at PS: Mangolpuri and on the said date the investigation of present case was marked to him. He gave a notice u/s. 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused. The accused was bound down to appear before the Court, when the summons will be received by her. Thereafter, he filed the charge sheet in the Court. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED:-
10. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused has been recorded. All incriminating evidence was put to the accused.
She stated that she is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to quarrel with TPDDL officials. Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:-
11. Section 135 of the Electricity Act provides as under :-
"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 FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 7 of 15 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 authorised;
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:"
12. In the case in hand the accused has been facing trial for indulging in direct theft of electricity as provided under Section 135(1)(a) of Electricity Act, 2003. To prove its case the complainant was required to establish beyond reasonable doubt:-
(a) That the accused Saroj has indulged in direct theft of electricity by taking direct hooking of phase, neutral from tyco box of LT network at TPDDL Pole No. 504-26/26/1/2/1 by using illegal aluminum wire, which was found further connected to the internal wiring of the premises.
(b) That the accused Saroj has committed the theft by using PVC black colored aluminum wire.
13. PW-2 Sh. Himanshu Sharma (Zonal Manager) and PW-3 Sh. H.S. Dagar (Senior Executive) are the most material witnesses in this case. The said witnesses were member of the inspection team of the complainant company. The said witnesses have corroborated the allegations mentioned in the complaint and deposed that during inspection accused was found indulged in direct FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 8 of 15 theft of electricity by taking direct hooking of phase, neutral from tyco box of LT network at TPDDL Pole No. 504-26/26/1/2/1 by using illegal aluminum wire, which was found further connected to the internal wiring of the premises. PW-2 and PW-3 also deposed that they had seized the illegal wires, vide seizure memo, which is Ex. PW2/B. PW-2 and PW-3 deposed that inspection report, site sketch and seizure memo of illegal wire were prepared at the spot and they had proved on record the inspection report as Ex.PW2/A, Site sketch as Ex.PW2/C and seizure memo as Ex.PW2/B. It is pertinent to mention here that both the said witnesses have correctly identified the accused in the Court. The relevant extract of the examination in chief of PW-2 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"....PW-2: On 06.09.2019, I as a team leader alongwith Sh. Hardeep Singh Dagar, Photographer Sh. Anil, Zonal Staff, ESF Staff inspected the premises of the accused at Jhuggi NO. N-780/104, Parwana road dera gazi khan, Pitampura Delhi. On inspection We found that a CA No. 60011783838, Meter No. 41186817 is installed at the premises of the accused but the supply of the meter/electricity was disconnected and the accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by taking direct hoking of phase, neutral from tyco Box of LT network at TPDDL Pole No. 504-26/26/1/2/1 by using illegal aluminum wire which was found further connected to the internal wiring of the accused premises. The connected load was found to be 0.988 KW for domestic purpose. Inspection was conducted in the presence of the accused and the inspection report EX. PW 2/A bearing my signature at point A and B was prepared at the time of the FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 9 of 15 inspection at the inspection site. We tried handing over a copy of the inspection report to the accused but she refused to sign or accept the same. The accused did not allow us to paste the copy of the inspection report on the wall. We seized the accessible illegal PVC black colored aluminum wire in two pieces of approximately 20 meter in length vide the seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B bearing my signature at point A and B. We tried handing over a copy of the seizure memo to the accused but she refused to sign or accept the same. The accused did not allow us to paste the copy of the seizure memo on the wall. A site sketch Ex. PW 2/C bearing my signature at point A was also prepared at the time of inspection at the inspection site. The photographer took photographs and made videography of the inspection and seizure. The accused is present in the court and the witness can correctly identified her...".
14. The said witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of accused, but nothing fruitful came out in favour of the accused.
15. PW-4 Sh. Anil Rawat (photographer) supported the version of PW-2 and PW-3 and deposed that on the date of inspection, on 06.09.2019, he alongwith team leader Sh. Himanshu Sharma (Zonal Manager) and Sh. H.S. Dagar (Senior Executive) inspected the premises of accused. He further deposed that he was working as photographer on the said date of inspection. He had taken photographs as per instructions received from Sh. Himanshu Sharma and Sh. Hardeep Singh Dagar. He had taken a total of 19 photographs during the said inspection. He had filed a certificate u/s 65B, which is FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 10 of 15 Ex. PW4/A bears his signature at point A. He had also prepared the CD. The said CD is PW4/B. The photographs taken during inspection are EX.PW4/C-1 to PW3/C-19. The accused has failed to dispute the execution of Certificate u/s. 65-B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 rendering the said photographs admissible in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Anvar PV Vs. PK Basir (214) 10 SCC 473. The relevant extract of the examination in chief of PW-4 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"..PW-4: On 06.09.2019, I alongwith team leader Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Shri Hardeep Singh Dagar inspected the premises of accused at Jhuggi No. N- 780/104, Parvana Road, Dera Ghazi Khan, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. I was working as photographer on the said date of inspection. I have taken photographs as per instructions received from Mr. Himanshu Sharma and Shri Hardeep Singh Dagar. I had taken a total of 19 photographs during the said inspection. I have given a prepared the CD. The said CD is Ex. PW4/B. The photographs taken during inspection are Ex. PW4/C1 to Ex. PW4/C19...".
16. Accused has not disputed that there was electricity meter in her premises. During evidence before the court, CD of the inspection proceedings was produced and played before the court which reveals the manner in which accused was indulged in direct theft of electricity. It is not disputed that the inspecting team inspected the premises of accused. The presence of the accused at the time of inspection is visible from the photograph, which is Ex.
FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 11 of 15
PW4/C15.
17. It is clear from the deposition of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 that an inspection was carried out at premises of the accused on 06.09.2019 by the inspecting team members/officials of complainant company and the accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity. She had tampered the electricity supply system of the complainant company by indulging in direct theft of electricity by taking direct hooking of phase, neutral from tyco box of LT network at TPDDL Pole No. 504-26/26/1/2/1 by using illegal aluminum wire, which was found further connected to the internal wiring of the premises. The entire inspection proceedings were recorded by the photographer, the said photographs has been brought on record. It clearly depicts that accused had tampered the electricity supply system of the complainant company through illegal wires. PW-2 and PW-3 proved the relevant documents i.e. inspection report, which is Ex. PW2/A, seizure memo of illegal materials, which is Ex. PW2/B and site sketch, which is Ex. PW2/C. The accused has not disputed her presence at the time of inspection as reflected in photographs of the premises.
18. The accused has taken a sole defence that no public witness has been joined by the inspection team during the raid of the premises. This plea of the accused does not carry much weight because in the present case, accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by tampering the electricity supply FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 12 of 15 system of the complainant company through illegal material/wires, and these facts have been well proved by PW-2 and PW-3. In the case titled as 'Sushil Sharma vs BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.' in Crl. Appeal No.1060/10, decided on 22.12.2010, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that non-examination of independent/public witness is no infirmity and the members of the inspection team who deposed in the court, were having no enmity against the appellant and their testimonies are trustworthy. In the present case also, there is no material to show that the TPDDL officials were inimical to the accused. Thus, non- joining of public witness is not fatal to the prosecution case.
19. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. vs. Ashwani Kumar, 2010 (7) SCC 569' has observed that inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of his official duty by the officers and once an act is done in accordance with law the presumption of authenticity rest with the documents so prepared. The relevant extract of the same is produced below for ready reference:-
".....The report prepared by the officers of the Electricity Board is an act done in discharge of their duties and could not be straightway reflected or disbelieved unless and until there was definite and cogent material on record to arrive at such a finding. The inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of his official duty by the officers of the corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in favour of FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 13 of 15 such act or document and not against the same. Thus there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct....".
20. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. If the accused was not indulged in direct theft of electricity or that s he was using the electricity through any legal means, then the easiest way for the accused was to prove on record that she was using electricity for her premises at the time of inspection. 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' reported as 2007 (99) DRJ108. The observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are reproduced as under:-
"....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 FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 14 of 15 had only taken the stand that inspection was not valid inspection and the photographs were not proved properly".
21. The accused had the opportunity to bring on record the electricity bills to prove that at the time of inspection the accused was using electricity from her authorize connection, however, she has failed to do so. The complainant company has been successful in establishing the identity of the accused at the time of inspection. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the accused has indulged in direct theft of electricity and the complainant company has successfully proved that the accused has indulged in direct theft of electricity. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused has not disputed her presence the time of inspection.
22. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was indulged in direct theft of electricity which is punishable under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Consequently, accused is convicted under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
23. Put up for determination of civil liability and order on sentence on 14.12.2023. Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date:
2023.12.13 15:20:53 +0530 Announced in the open court (JITENDRA SINGH) today i.e. on 13.12.2023 ASJ (Electricity)/ Distt. N/W Rohini Courts, Delhi FIR No. 1108/2021 , State Vs. Saroj 15 of 15