Delhi District Court
Brpl vs . Dhanish Goyal & Anr. Cis No.643191/16 ... on 31 October, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Complaint Case No. : 08/13
Police Station : Khanpur, New Delhi
U/s : 135 & 138 of Electricity Act, 2003
Unique ID No. : 02406 RO038482013
CIS No. : 643191/16
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
A company duly incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi110019
and its Corporate, Legal and Enforcement
Cell at Andrews Ganj,
Near Andrews Ganj Market,
New Delhi110049.
Acting through Sh. Ashutosh Kumar,
(Authorised Representative)
...Complainant
Versus
1. Dhanish Goyal (User)
45/18, Ground Floor,
LSC Market, Dakshin Puri Extension,
New Delhi110062
2. Smt. Badri Nath (R/C)(Absconder)
45/18, Ground Floor, LSC Market,
Dakshin Puri Extension,
New Delhi110062
...Accused
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 1 of 23
2
Complaint instituted on : 23.04.2013
Judgment reserved on : 31.10.2017
Judgment pronounced on : 31.10.2017
JUDGMENT
1. A complaint U/sec. 151 r/w/sec. 154 (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for offence punishable U/sec. 135 &
138 of the Act was filed against the accused Dhanish Goyal and Smt.
Badri Nath. Determination of civil liability against accused has also
been prayed for.
2. Brief facts of the case as per complaint filed on behalf of complainant
company are that on 18.01.2011, the officials of the MMG (Meter
Management Group) department of the complainant replaced a faulty
electronic meter bearing no. 17057911 (hereinafter referred as meter in
question) from the premises of accused with a new electronic meter
bearing no. 29011103 on the same day. The removed meter was seized
at site vide bag no. 395776 with seal no. 04935 and sent to the meter
testing laboratory for further testing of meter with an intimation letter
(vide no. 26414) dated 18.01.2011 to the accused persons that they may
witness the testing/analysis of meter in laboratory on 25.01.2011.
The removed meter was tested in laboratory on 31.01.2011 and as per
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 2 of 23
3
meter testing/analysis report no. BRPL/11/13196 dated 31.01.2011, the
plastic seals and hologram seals were found tampered, the meter LCD
and LED were found not ok, top cover was found refixed and illegal
magnetic switches found connected on R, Y and B Phase CT output,
thus it was concluded that meter was tampered.
3. It is the case of the complainant company that on the basis of said lab
report, an inspection team comprising of officials of complainant
company inspected the premises of accused on 15.02.2011 at 01.10 a.m.
During inspection, premises in question was used and occupied by the
accused persons namely Dhanish Goyal (User) and Smt. Badri Nath
(Registered Consumer). The inspection team prepared the inspection
report, load report, seizure memo as per lab report at site. Videography
was also conducted by the joint inspection team contained in the form of
Compact disc. At the time of inspection, total connected load was found
to be 43.389 KW for industrial purpose. A Showcause notice dated
04.03.2011 was issued to the accused requesting them to file reply by
25.03.2011 and to attend the personal hearing on 30.03.2011 at 11.00
a.m. before the Assessing officer of the complainant company but
despite that accused did not attend the personal hearing thus, after taking
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 3 of 23
4
into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the Speaking Order
was passed on 15.04.2011 by Assessing Officer recording the findings
of a conclusive evidence of DAE.
4. On the basis of connected load & applicable tariff, theft bill of
Rs.7,52,368/ was raised. On failure of accused to pay the same, present
complaint was filed.
5. Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the offence punishable
u/sec. 135 (1)(b) r/w/sec. 138 (1)(d) r/w/sec. 150 of the Electricity Act
on 14.01.2013. The complainant examined two witnesses in pre
summoning evidence. Accused were summoned for the offence
U/s 135 & 138 r/w section 150 of Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to
as Act).
6. Accused no.2 Smt. Badrinath was declared as absconder vide order
dated 04.03.2014 by ld. predecessor of this court.
7. Notice of accusation u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s
135 & 138 r/w/sec. 150 of the Electricity Act was put to accused
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 4 of 23
5
Dhanish Goyal to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on the
ground that there was no complaint with regard to any faulty meter and
as per electricity bill dated 14.01.2011 raised by the complainant
company, the meter status was Ok and MDI was 39.00 and that on
18.01.2011 without any complaint, the meter was changed and sent to
laboratory for test on 25.01.2011 but the meter was tested on 31.01.2011
without any intimation to him. Lastly, it is stated by accused that false
and manipulated case was booked against him.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, eight (08) witnesses were
produced by the complainant company.
9. Shri Kesh Ram ShakiyaDiploma Engineer in the complainant company
was examined as PW1, who has deposed that on 15.02.2011 at about
01.10 p.m. he alongwith Sh. Radhey SharmaSenior Manager, Sh. Lekh
RajSenior Shift Officer, Sh. Neeraj KumarLineman, Sh. Vijay
Videographer inspected the premises bearing house no. 18/45, LSC
Market, Dakshin Puri Extension, New Delhi on the basis of lab report in
order to assess total connnected load of the premises. The total
connected load of premises was found to be 21.031 KW for industrial
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 5 of 23
6
purpose. PW1 further deposed that inspection report, load report and
seizure memo were prepared at site and proved the same as Ex. CW
2/C, Ex.CW2/D and Ex.CW2/E. He identified the videogoraphy as
contained in the CD Ex.CW2/F.
10. In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW1 answered that
Masala Chakki was in running condition at the time of inspection and
few workers were involved in repairing of said masala chakki. PW1
further answered that no accucheck machine was used to measure the
load of the premises and volunteered that the connected load was
assessed on the basis of rating plates of the electrical gadgets. PW1
further answered that the meter in question was a three phase electronic
meter and that if one wire is disconnected in a three phase meter, even
then the meter will function and will record the consumption. PW1
further answered that as per lab report, meter was defective. The
witness again said that meter was tampered. PW1 identified the
accused, present in the court, at the time of his deposition. PW1
deposed that he prepared the inspection report and load report whereas
the seizure memo was prepared by Sh. Lekh Raj.
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 6 of 23
7
11. PW2 Shri Radhey Shyam, Senior Manager in the complainant
company, deposed in his examination in chief the facts almost on the
same lines on which the PW1 had deposed. However, in his cross
examination on behalf of the accused, he replied that no prior notice was
given to the accused for conducting inspection prior to the date of
inspection. He further replied that at the time of inspection, he
downloaded the meter recorded data.
12. PW3 Shri Lekh Raj, Assistant Manager in the complainant company,
has deposed almost same facts in his examination in chief as deposed by
PW1 and PW2. However, in his cross examination on behalf of the
accused, he replied that at the time of inspection, Masala Chakki, water
pump and other lighting load were connected.
13. PW4 Shri Pankaj Tandon, A.R. of the complainant company proved his
General Power of Attorney as Ex. PW4/A. He proved filing of the
complaint and letter of authority in favour of previous AR Sh. Ashutosh
Kumar. Complainant's evidence was closed by the statement of the AR.
In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, he replied that he did
not visit the site and that he had no personal knowledge of the case.
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 7 of 23
8
14. PW5 Sh. Neeraj Kumar deposed on the same footings as deposed by
other raiding team members i.e. PW1, PW2 and PW3.
15. PW6 Sh. Gaurav Bajaj, Engineer from the laboratory, who deposed that
on 31.01.2011, he tested the meter Ex.P1 in the laboratory and that after
testing the meter, it was observed that plastic seal and hologram seal of
meter were tampered, meter top cover was also found refixed, the LCD
and LED of the meter found OK. PW6 deposed that on further testing
of the meter, it was found that an illegal magnetic switch was found
connected on R, Y and B Phase CT Outputs, thus, it was concluded that
meter was found tampered. PW6 deposed that after testing the meter in
question, he prepared the lab report and sealed the meter with new seal
bearing serial No. 099352 BRPL PS. PW6 idenfied the meter Ex.P1
as the same tested by him in the laboratory.
16. In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW6 admitted it as
correct that the meter was not tested on the date which was given by the
MMG department. PW6 replied that meter might have changed by the
Key Consumer Cell. PW6 further replied that he did not know as to
where is the office of the Key Consumer Cell located and again said, the
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 8 of 23
9
same might be in the Punjabi Bagh. PW6 further replied that the Key
Consumer Cell deals with the high demand consumption of electricity.
PW6 admitted it as correct that the accuracy of the meter in question
was within the range at the time of testing the same. PW6 further
admitted it as correct that at the time of testing of meter, MDI was not
recorded and volunteered that at the time of tesing of meter, the MDI
was at the lower side. PW6 admitted it as correct that at the time of
testing, the meter was recording the readings.
17. PW7 Shri Anuj Kumar, General Manager in the complainant company,
had proved the Speaking Order Ex. CW2/H (Colly). PW7 deposed
that as per lab report, the meter was found tampered as the cover of the
meter was refixed, seals were tampered and illegal magnetic switches
were connected on R, Y and B Phase CT (Current Transformers) output
locations inside the meter. Thereafter, the consumption against the
meter was also analysed from 08.04.2010 to 18.01.2011 which was
found only 12% against the assessed load. PW7 further deposed that
during the analysis, it was found that meter had recorded 42 KW MD, so
the speaking order was passed against the consumer on 15.04.2011.
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 9 of 23
10
18. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, PW7 replied that
MDI is of a particular month and not for a year. PW7 replied that he
did not analyse the postconsumption bills while passing the speaking
order since the meter was tampered. He further replied that as per the
lab report, the seals of meter were tampered. He further denied the
suggestion that as per letter dated 18.01.2011 Serial no. 7696 by KCC,
the existing seals of the meter were intact (objected to as the document
is not on record). PW7 admitted it as correct that the connected load
on the date of inspection was 21 KW. The MDI of 42 KW appeared on
the basis of old bills and the reading pattern of the meter.
19. PW8 Shri G. B. Barapatre, who deposed that he prepared the theft bill
Ex. CW2/I, after considering all the documents i.e. inspection report,
load report and speaking order and he also proved the said theft bill. In
his cross examination on behalf of the accused, he answered that he had
prepared the theft bill as per the guidelines of DERC Annexure XIII.
PW8 admitted it as correct that theft bill was prepared under his
supervision by subordinate staff and is a computer generated.
PW8 replied that he verified the particulars mentioned in the theft bill
from inspection report, load report and speaking order.
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 10 of 23
11
20. It is submitted by ld. counsel for complainant company that on
18.01.2011, the authorised officers from MMG (Meter Management
Group) visited the premises of accused and found that the electronic
meter bearing no. 17057911 was faulty and accordingly, the faulty meter
was replaced with the new electronic meter bearing no. 29011103 at the
same day. The faulty meter was seized vide bag no. 395776 with seal
no. 04935 and was sent to the laboratory for further analysis. It is
further submitted that accused was also intimated to witness the
proceedings of meter testing before the laboratory on 25.01.2011. The
seized meter was examined in the laboratory on 31.01.2011 and as per
lab report bearing no. BRPL/11/13196 dated 31.01.2012, it was
observed that:
(a) Plastic seals & hologram seals were found tampered.
(b) Meter LCD and LED were found not Ok.
(c) Top cover was found refixed.
(d) Illegal magnetic switches found connected on R, Y and B phase
CT output.
21. It is further submitted that the laboratory declared the meter in question
as tampered. After the result of the lab report, the premises having
CRN No. 2510098077 was inspected by the authorised BSES
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 11 of 23
12
Enforcement team on 15.02.2011 and the load of 21.031 KW was
assessed for industrial use against the sanctioned load of 20 KW. It is
submitted that necessary videography was carried out for the load. It is
further argued that in the laboratory, it was declared that the meter in
question was tampered by the accused as illegal magnetic switches
found connected on R, Y and B phase CT output. It is submitted that
consumption records for the period 08.04.2010 to 17.01.2011 was taken
which shows an average consumption of 370 units per month which had
been found only 12% of the assessed consumption. It is further
submitted that during the testing of meter in question in the laboratory,
the SAP (Systemetic Analysis Procedure) shows that the Maximum
Demand recorded by the meter had remained more than the connected
load for all billing cycles and it has gone up to 41.22 KW and
accordingly, the bill was prepared on the basis of MDI and not on the
basis of load taken at the premises in question on 15.02.2011. It is
further submitted that the faulty meter was installed at the premises on
08.04.2010 and accordingly, the accused is liable to pay the theft bill of
electricity from the period 08.04.2010 onwards and not from
18.01.2011.
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 12 of 23
13
22. Ld. counsel for the complainant company has taken me to the cross
examination of complainant's witnesses and submitted that the premises
in question is duly admitted, the change of meter bearing no. 17057911
at the premises of accused is also duly admitted as well as the MDI is
also admitted to 39 KW.
23. Ld. counsel for the complainant company has further taken me to the
crossexamination of PW1, the relevant extract of same is reproduced
as under:
".....The meter in question was a three phase electronic
meter. If one wire is disconnected in a three phase meter,
even then the meter will function and will record the
consumption....".
24. Ld. counsel for complainant company has further taken me to the cross
examination of PW2, the relevant extract of same is reproduced as
under:
"No key of the meter was with us nor it was required
because the meter reading of download of the data can be
done from outside of the meter by the socket which is
fixed in the meter. It is incorrect to suggest that there was
no socket outside the meter and I am deposing falsely to
this effect. It is incorrect to suggest that as the meter is
covered with a meter box and as such the data of the same
cannot be downloaded from outside.....".
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 13 of 23
14
25. Ld. counsel for further taken me to the deposition of PW6 Sh. Gaurav
Bajaj, the relevant extract is reproduced as under:
".....After opening the bag, I found that the plastic seal
and hologram seal of the said meter were tampered and
also meter top cover was found refixed. LCD and LED
of the said meter was found OK. On further testing of the
said meter, I found that an illegal magnetic switch was
found connected on R, Y and B Phase CT Outputs. On
the basis of the above observations, I came to the
conclusion that meter was found tampered. After testing
the meter in question, the lab report was prepared by me
in the presence of Sh. Bimal MandalManager. After
testing the meter in question, I sealed the same in the
same bag with new seal bearing serial No. 099352 BRPL
PS".
26. Ld. counsel has further taken me to the deposition of PW7, the relevant
extract is reproduced as under:
"......As per the lab report, the meter was found tampered
as the cover of the meter was refix, seals were tampered
and illegal magnetic switches were connnected on R, Y
and B Phase CT (Current Transformers) output locations
inside the meter. Thereafter, the consumption against the
meter was also analysed from 08.04.2010 to 18.01.2011
which was found only 12% against the assessed load.
During the analysis, it was also found that the meter have
recorded 42 KW MD, so the speaking order was passed
against the consumer on 15.04.2011 which is already
Ex.CW2/H (Colly) and bearing my signatures at point
A".
27. Ld. counsel has further drawn my attention to the lab report Ex.CW2/B
(colly) and submits that it is clearly depicted in the lab report that the
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 14 of 23
15
illegal magnetic switches found connected on R, Y and B Phase CT
output and accordingly, the meter was found as tampered. Ld. counsel
for the complainant company has also drawn my attention on the
documents placed alongwith the lab report at page nos. 17 to 21 which
are the photographs of the internal side/section of the meter in question
and submitted that in the said photographs, the illegal magnetic switches
found connected on R, Y and B Phase CT output shows tampering of
meter by the accused persons. Ld. counsel for complainant company
has further taken me to page no. 29 of the documents placed on record at
the column of CT Open and submits that the duration of theft is duly
mentioned in said document. Ld. counsel for the complainant company
has further taken me to the Billing Parameters at the column of
Commulative Tamper Count is recorded as 000294 which shows that
illegal magnetic switches were on for 294 times which has stopped the
meter for recording the reading in the meter. Ld. counsel has further
taken me to the consumption pattern and submits that the Final Average
LDHF is recorded as 2996.92 as against 370 units per month which is
only 12.35% of connected load. It is further submitted by ld. counsel for
complainant company that on the basis of the detailed findings of the lab
report, the consumption pattern and CMRI Data, the complainant
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 15 of 23
16
company has established beyond reasonable doubt that the meter in
question was tampered by the accused himself by inserting the foreign
material i.e. illegal magnetic switches which were found connected on
R, Y and B Phase CT output at the time of testing of meter in question
in the lab.
28. Lastly, It is submitted by ld. counsel for the complainant company that
once the burden is discharged by the complainant company that the
meter in question was tampered by the accused and dishonest absraction
of energy was taken by the accused through illegal means then the onus
shifts upon the accused to show that the meter in question was not
tampered and he was using the electricity by paying legal charges for the
same but in the present case nothing has been placed on record by the
accused persons moreover not even a single electricity bill has been
placed on record by the accused.
29. Ld. counsel for complainant company has placed reliance upon various
judgments decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the relevant extract
of the case are reproduced aas under:
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 16 of 23
17
(a) In Kanta Sharma Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., in W.P. (C)
17121/2011, decided on 16.03.2011, the Hon'ble High Court has held as
under:
"......Once the Regulations are not found to impose any
obligation on the respondent to test the meter in the
presence of the consumer and the consumer fails to avail the opportunity on the date given for tesing, the process cannot be made cumbersome and the condition that no testing can be carried out without the presence of the petitioner and which may lead to delays cannot be imposed......."
(b) In Narinder Aggarwal Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd, in W.P. (C) 1789/2011 & CM No. 3796/2011 decided on 18.03.2011, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: ".....8. The counsel for the petitioner has also raised another legal argument for enetertaining the writ petition before this Court only. It is contended that though Regulation 52(viii) talks of the meter being tested in an NABL laboratory, Regulation 52 (xii) provides for the establishment of theft by analysis of metering data "downloaded by a third party authorized laboratory". He contends that even if the laboratory of the respondent is NABL accredited, it would still not fit into the definition of "third party". He thus contends that the finding of DAE on the basis of downloading of data by the respondent's own laboratory cannot be sustanined".
9. "In my opinion, the reference in Regulation 52(xii) to a "third party authorized laboratory" has to necessarily mean an NABL accredited laboratory referred to in Regulation 52(viii). I am unable to hold that though the testing in an NABL authorized laboratory can form the basis of theft under Regulation 52(viii), for arriving at a conclusion of theft under Regulation 52(xii), the data has to be sent to a third party laboratory. Thus, in my opinion the reference in Regulation 52(xii) is to an NABL accredited laboratory only....."
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 17 of 23 18
(c) In Mukesh Rastogi Vs. North Delhi Power Limited, in Criminal Appeal No. 531/2007, decided on 23.10.2007, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "......6. The contention of the appellant is that electricity supply was 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 meter. 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 had only taken the stand that inspection was not valid inspection and the photographs were not proved properly".
7. "I consider that even if the inspection was not a valid inspection, complainant had a right to prove theft of electricity done by the appellant irrespective of the status of inspection. The invalid inspection does not make theft of electricity as a noncrime. Theft of electricity remains a crime irrespective of fact that inspection is valid or not. Supreme Court in State & Ors. v. N. M. T. Joy Immaculate 2004(5) SCC 729 observed that admissibillity or otherwise of a piece of evidence has to be judged having regard to the provisions of the Evidence Act. Neither Evidence Act nor Cr.P.C. or any other law excludes relevant evidence on the ground that it was obtained under an illegal search or seizure. I, therefore, consider that even if the inspection was not conducted by an Officer as designated under the notification date 31 st March, 2004, the members of the inspection team, who BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 18 of 23 19 had visited the site and found that electricity being stolen are competent witnesses to depose in the Court about the theft of electricity and the manner in which electricity was being stolen....."
30. On the other hand, it is argued by ld. counsel for accused that as per KCC (Key Consumer Cell) letter, all the existing seals of the meter output box were intact. In rebuttal to this arguments, it was submitted by ld. counsel for the complainant company that no such document is placed on record and the arguments of ld. counsel for accused is entirely baseless and irrelevant.
31. Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that as per letter dated 18.01.2011, the meter in question was supposed to be tested on 25.01.2011 in the laboratory but the same was tested on 31.01.2011. However, in rebuttal, it was argued on behalf of complainant company that notice was given to the consumer on 25.01.2011 but once he opted not to turn up than the meter in question was tested on 31.01.2011 in the NABL accredited laboratory.
32. Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that meter in question was tested in the own laboratory of the complainant company and not by the BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 19 of 23 20 National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) accredited laboratory. However, in rebuttal, it is argued by ld. counsel for complainant company that the BRPL laboratory is a NABL accredited laboratory and lab report Ex.CW2/B (colly) is duly verified.
33. Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that meter was installed on 08.04.2010 and it was replaced on 18.01.2011 and the complainant company was supposed to raise the bill only for 9 months but PW8 Sh. G. B. Barapatre has raised the bill for 12 months, accordingly, violating the DERC regulations. In rebuttal, ld. counsel for complainant company has duly admitted this fact and submitted that accused is only liable to pay the theft bill for 9 months.
34. Ld. counsel for accused has further submitted that the present case is not the case of DAE, rather, it is a case of suspected DAE. However, in rebuttal, it is argued by ld. counsel for complainant company that complainant has duly established the case of DAE by the accused persons.
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 20 of 23 21
35. Ld. counsel for accused has further argued that as per para 3 of complaint, the meter was faulty and once the meter is faulty it cannot be declared as defective. However, in rebuttal, it is argued by ld. counsel for complainant company that when the meter was removed by the MMG, initially, it is written as faulty and it is only after the same has been duly tested in the NABL accredited laboratory when the lab has declared the meter in question as tampered. It is further submitted that the load of masala chakki is unnecessarily included in the load report to exaggerate the load as the same was not in working condition at the time of inspection. In rebuttal, it was argued by ld. counsel for complainant company that it has duly come in the crossexamination of PW1 that the masala chakki was in running condition and was connected at the time of taking load.
36. I have heard the counsel for the complainant Sh. Rishabh Raj Jain and counsel for accused Sh. N. K. Nagar and also perused the record including the CD of videography displayed on the computer screen of the court.
BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 21 of 23 22
37. In the present case, there is no dispute as regards identity of accused and the connection of the accused with the premises in question. The only question which has to be decided is that whether meter in question was tampered by the accused in order to dishonestly abstracted the energy and in this regard the complainant company has duly proved that meter in question was tampered by the accused persons by inserting foreign material i.e. magnetic switches connected on R, Y and B Phase CT output, clearly depicted in the photographs placed on record alongwith lab report Ex.CW2/B (Colly). Moreover, nothing in rebuttal has been placed on record by accused in order to show that meter in question was not tampered by him.
38. Thus, in view of the testimony of complainant's witnesses, detailed arguments rendered by both the counsels as well as documents placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that accused Dhanish Goyal has miserably failed to show a reasonable probability of his defence that the meter in question was not tampered and that he is not liable for any alleged theft since he has miserably failed to uproot or shake the testimony of PW6 (Sh. Gaurav Bajaj) in his respective cross examination qua the tampering of meter. Accordingly, he is held guilty BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 22 of 23 23 for the offence under section 135 & 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The evidence recorded in this case shall be read against the absconder accused namely Smt. Badri Nath and the file may be revived, as and when, accused Smt. Badri Nath, is brought to book. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open ( NEELAM SINGH) court on this 31st of OCTOBER, 2017 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI BRPL VS . DHANISH GOYAL & ANR. CIS No.643191/16 Page no. 23 of 23