Delhi District Court
State vs . Noorjahan & Ors. Fir No.329/15 Page No. ... on 30 August, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Session Case No. : 143/17
FIR No. : 329/15
Police Station : Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
U/s : 135 of Electricity Act, 2003
CIS No. : 644/17
STATE
Versus
(i) NOORJAHAN
(ii) ZAHEEDA
(iii) MOHD. NASEEM
All at:
C119/2, Abul Fazal EnclaveII,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi
...Accused
Case instituted on : 09.02.2018
Judgment reserved on : 30.08.2018
Judgment pronounced on : 30.08.2018
JUDGMENT
1.The case of the prosecution in brief is that a complaint was received at police station Jamia Nagar on the basis of which above said FIR no. 329/15 was registered u/s. 135 Electricity Act, 2003. STATE Vs. NOORJAHAN & ORS. FIR No.329/15 Page no. 1 of 11 2
2. It is pertinent to mention here that present complaint has been filed against accused persons namely Sahid Begum, Noor Jha and Mohd. Saijd Ali and accordingly FIR was registered against them whereas chargesheet has been filed against accused persons namely Noorjahan, Zaheeda and Mohd. Naseem.
3. As per contents of the said complaint, the case of the complainant in brief is that on 23.09.2014 at about 2.10 p.m., a raiding team consisted of Sh.Nirankar SinghManager, Sh.Lallan-DE, Sh.SatenderLineman conducted inspection at the premises i.e. C119/2, Abdul Fazal Enclave II near Tayabba Masjid, Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi110025. It is further mentioned in the complaint that at the time of inspection there was no electricity meter at site and accused persons were found indulged in direct theft of electricity from the BSES distribution box with the help of illegal wire and further feeding to the connected load. It is further mentioned in the complaint that total connected load was assessed at site which was found to be 8.706 KW for domestic purpose. It is further mentioned in the said complaint that the material evidence i.e. two number of black colour aluminium wire of size 2.5 mm sq. and in length 2 meter approximately was seized by the inspection team at the time of STATE Vs. NOORJAHAN & ORS. FIR No.329/15 Page no. 2 of 11 3 inspection. It is further mentioned in the complaint that inspection report, load report and seizure memo were prepared at site and necessary videography was also done at the site.
4. It is further mentioned in the said complaint that complainant has assessed the civil liability of Rs. 95,793/ and theft bill as per DERC Regulations and tariff order was raised accordingly with due date as 10.10.2014 and the notice of the same was served upon the accused persons but they failed to pay the said theft bill hence complaint was filed before the PS.
5. Cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 135 of the Electricity Act was taken on 09.02.2018. Notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was framed against accused Naseem to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on the ground that false and fabricated case has been made out against him by the complainant company since he is permanently residing at A30, Nehru Camp, Kalkaji, Govind Puri, New Delhi. He further submitted that his name was disclosed to the inspection team by another accused i.e. Noorjahan, who is the owner of the premises in question. Hence, he is STATE Vs. NOORJAHAN & ORS. FIR No.329/15 Page no. 3 of 11 4 not liable to pay any loss or damage as alleged by the complainant company.
6. It is further pertinent to mention here that accused persons namely Noorjahan and Zahida were declared absconders vide order dated 24.07.2018 and accused Noorjahan appeared on 31.07.2018 and pleaded guilty. Accused Zahida appeared thereafter and she also admitted her guilt. Both accused Noorjahan and Zahida further submitted that they have paid the civil liability qua the theft bill and complainant company has also issued NOC to this effect. Hence, vide my separate order dated 28.08.2018, both said accused persons were held guilty and convicted U/sec. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Both the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court in order to meet the ends of justice.
7. Accused Mohd. Naseem did not plead guilty and in order to prove the case, prosecution produced seven witnesses, which have been discussed below.
STATE Vs. NOORJAHAN & ORS. FIR No.329/15 Page no. 4 of 11 5
8. The statement of accused Mohd. Naseem was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C on 17.07.2018 separately and he pleaded his innocence and denied the evidence as false and answered that he was not committing any direct theft of electricity at the premises in question on the date of inspection. He further answered that he has no concern with ground floor, first floor and third floor of premises bearing no. H. No. C119/2, Abul Fazal Enclave, Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi110025 and further submitted that he had purchased the second floor portion from one Mohd. Nabi on 01.04.2013 and the same was lying vacant and nobody was residing in the said flat. He further stated that he is residing at H. No. A30, Jawahar Lal Nehru Camp, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi19. Accused did not opt to lead defence evidence.
9. PW1 Sh.Nirankar SinghSenior ManagerBRPL, who deposed that on 23.09.2014 at about 2.10 p.m. he alongwith other raiding team members inspected the premises bearing no. C119/2, Abul Fazal EnclaveII, Shaheen Bagh near Tabbya Masjid, New Delhi. He further deposed that at the time of inspection, it was found that direct theft of electricity was going on at the premises in question from the BSES distribution box with the help of illegal wires i.e. two core black colour aluminium wire. STATE Vs. NOORJAHAN & ORS. FIR No.329/15 Page no. 5 of 11 6 He further deposed that entire load was running on direct theft. The connected load was found to be 8.706 KW for domestic purpose. He proved the inspection report, load report and seizure memo prepared at site as Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. He further deposed that videography of connected load as well as mode of theft was also conducted at site and identified the CD of said videography as Ex.PW1/D. PW1 also proved the two core black colour aluminium wire as Ex. P2. PW1 further proved the complaint as Ex.PW1/E.
10. In his crossexamination on behalf of accused Naseem, PW1 replied that premises in question consisted of four floors. PW1 further replied that three floors were booked for the theft of electricity i.e. ground floor, third floor and fourth floor. PW1 further replied that it was revealed from the site that owner of the building is one Sajid Ali and user of the premises as Sahid Begum, Noor Jahan and Mohd. Sajid Ali. PW1 admitted that the load mentioned in the load report pertains to all three booked floors. He did not remember if the accused was present at site during inspection. He could not admit or deny if the accused Naseem is the owner of the second floor of premises bearing no. C119, Shaheen Bagh, Abdul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Okhla New Delhi. STATE Vs. NOORJAHAN & ORS. FIR No.329/15 Page no. 6 of 11 7
11. PW2 Sh.G. B. Barapatre, DGM (Finance) of complainant company deposed that on the basis of inspection report, load report and as per AnnexureXIII of the regulations of DERC, he raised the theft bill and proved the said theft bill as Ex.PW2/A. In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused Naseem, he replied that he did not visit the premises in question at the time of inspection. He further deposed that theft bill has been prepared on the basis of LDHF formula as per DERC guidelines.
12. PW3 Sh.Lallan Kumar was D.Engineer in the complainant company and a member of the inspection team who also deposed in his examination in chief on the same lines on which PW1 has deposed and as mentioned in the complaint as reproduced above. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Naseem, he replied that premises in question consisted of four floors. He further replied that three floors have been booked for the theft of the electricity i.e. ground floor, third floor and fourth floor. He admitted the fact that load mentioned in load report pertains to three floors which have been booked. STATE Vs. NOORJAHAN & ORS. FIR No.329/15 Page no. 7 of 11 8
13. PW4 Sh. Sunder Lal is the videographer from M/s Arora Photo Studio who correctly identified the videography of the inspection as the same conducted by him as Ex.PW1/D.
14. PW5 ASI Rameshwar Prasad is the second IO of the present case.
In his crossexamination on behalf of accused Naseem, he replied that he visited the premises in question number of times where he found a lady who told that there were some tenants in the premises namely Zahida and Mohd. Naseem and that they have left the premises. He further replied that he did not confirm regarding the tenancy of respective floor of Zahida and Mohd. Naseem. He further replied that he did not record the statement of said lady during investigation.
15. PW6 ASI Akhilesh Singh was the duty officer, who proved the FIR as Ex. PW6/A.
16. PW7 SI Brahm Prakash is the first IO who conducted investigation in the present case and recorded the statement of witnesses u/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. which he proved as Ex.PW7/A (colly).
STATE Vs. NOORJAHAN & ORS. FIR No.329/15 Page no. 8 of 11 9
17. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant company that complainant has been successful in bringing home the guilt of all accused persons and all the prosecution witnesses have deposed before this Court that at the time of inspection direct theft was being committed by the accused persons at the premises in question by directly tapping from the BSES distribution box and that the load of 8.706 KW was found being used for domestic purpose.
18. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for accused Naseem submitted that the prosecution is an utter failure in showing the involvement of accused Naseem in any manner in this case. It is further submitted that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that only three floors i.e. ground floor, third floor and fourth floor were booked for direct theft of electricity and the load was also taken only for these three floors. It is further submitted by ld. Counsel for accused that none of the witness has identified the accused Mohd. Naseem during their respective depositions and it is also an admitted fact that he was not present at the time of inspection. Ld. Counsel for accused has taken me to the documents relied upon by the prosecution i.e. inspection report, load report and seizure memo and this is an admitted fact that the premises of accused STATE Vs. NOORJAHAN & ORS. FIR No.329/15 Page no. 9 of 11 10 Mohd. Naseem i.e. second floor of the premises bearing no. C119, Abdul Fazal EnclaveII has not been taken in the inspection report. The other accused persons have also fairly submitted this fact that accused Mohd. Naseem is the owner of the second floor of the said premises. It is further submitted by ld. Counsel for accused that at the time of inspection second floor of the premises was lying vacant and none was residing and for that reason inspection team has not carried out any inspection and also has not taken any load.
19. I have heard ld. Counsels for both parties. I have also perused the record including the CD of videography displayed on the computer screen of the court.
20. On the basis of testimony of the witnesses and documents placed on record, it has been established that accused Mohd. Naseem has nothing to do with the premises in question i.e. ground floor, third floor and fourth floor and it is also an admitted case of the prosecution that the inspection was conducted only at the ground floor, third floor and fourth floor. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that complainant has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused Mohd. Naseem. STATE Vs. NOORJAHAN & ORS. FIR No.329/15 Page no. 10 of 11 11 Thus, I extend benefit of doubt to accused Mohd. Naseem and accordingly, he is acquitted of the offence u/s. 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The file be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2018.09.05
17:03:19 +0530
Announced in the open ( NEELAM SINGH)
Court on 30.08.2018 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. NOORJAHAN & ORS. FIR No.329/15 Page no. 11 of 11