Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Poonam Bansal on 24 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF Ms. SHELLY ARORA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (Electricity), EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No.929/2022
FIR No.486/2020
U/s 135/150 of Electricity Act
PS Laxmi Nagar
State versus 1) Poonam Bansal
S/o Sh. Ravi Kant Bansal
R/o F-144-D, Mangal Bazar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
2) Ravi Kant Bansal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Gopal Bansal
R/o F-144-D, Mangal Bazar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
Date of institution 25.08.2022
Arguments heard 21.03.2023
Date of judgment 21.03.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Poonam Bansal and Ravi Kant Bansal have been facing trial on the allegations that they were found indulged in direct theft of electricity and thereby committed offences under relevant provision of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Brief facts of the prosecution case
2. On 22.09.2020, at 12.15 pm, an inspection was carried out by the inspection team of the complainant company at the premises of accused persons i.e. F-144-D, Third Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. At the time of inspection, one meter bearing no.11888561 with reading 47639 FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 1 of 21 KWH units was found installed at site and the user Ravi Kant Bansal was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by inserting two black colour illegal PVC Teflon wires. Meter terminal seal and box seal were found tampered. The meter no.11888561 was removed, sealed and seized at the spot. Supply of the inspected premises was restored through new meter no.35628217 by Meter Management Department (MMD). At the time of inspection, total connected load was found to the tune of 15.398 KW which was being used for domestic purposes at Third Floor. Necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was captured by the videographer Sh. Ashish. Illegal material was also removed by the lineman and seized at the spot. The inspection report, load report and seizure memo were prepared at the spot. An advisory notice was also issued to the accused persons.
3. It is averred that accused Poonam Bansal was found to the registered consumer while accused Ravi Kant Bansal was found to be user. Accused Poonam Bansal being registered consumer abetted accused Ravi Kant Bansal for committing direct theft of electricity. Accordingly, BSES Yamuna Power Limited (hereinafter referred as complainant company) through its Authorized Officer Sh. Jitin Kumar Pal (Assistant Manager), lodged a complaint with the SHO, PS Laxmi Nagar for registration of FIR U/s 135/138 of the Act against the accused Ravi Kant Bansal and U/s 135/138 r/w Section 150 of the Act against the accused Poonam Bansal.
4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR No.486/2020 was registered and investigation of the case was marked to ASI Satender Singh, the IO FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 2 of 21 of the case.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.
NOTICE
6. On 25.08.2022, a notice for the commission of offence U/s 135 r/w Section 150 of the Act was given to accused Poonam Bansal. A separate notice for the commission of offence U/s 135 of the Act was given to accused Ravi Kant Bansal. Both accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
8. PW1 Sh. Jitin Kumar Pal is the Assistant Manager of the complainant company, who deposed that on 22.09.2020, at about 12.50 pm, an inspection was conducted by the enforcement team comprising of myself, Sh. Varun Sharma (DET), Sh. Raju (Lineman), Sh. Ravinder (lineman) and Sh. Ashish (Videographer) at the premises of accused persons i.e. H.No.F-144-D, 3rd Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. At the time of inspection, one single phase meter No.11888561 with reading 47639 KWH of units was found installed at the premises in the name of accused Poonam Bansal and was further found that accused persons were indulged in direct theft of electricity with the help of two numbers black colour illegal PVC Teflon wires which were found connected in the terminal of meter to bypass the meter installed, further FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 3 of 21 that the meter terminal seal and box seal were found tampered. PW1 further deposed that old meter was removed and new meter no.35628217 was installed in place of old meter. At the time of inspection, total connected load was found to the tune of 15.398 KW which was being used for domestic purposes at third floor. At the time of inspection, accused Ravi Kant Bansal was present at the spot and necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was done by the videographer Sh. Ashish. The CD containing videography of the inspection proceedings Ex.PW1/1. During evidence, the CD was played on the laptop and after seeing the video, witness identified the video which was recorded by the videographer during inspection. He also identified the accused Ravi Kant Bansal featuring in the said video. PW1 also deposed that the inspection report Ex.PW1/2 and the the load report Ex.PW1/3. The meter no.11888561 was removed by the lineman Sh. Ravinder Kumar and Sh. Raju and seized at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/4. During inspection, he also issued an advisory notice Ex.PW1/5. Entire set of inspection documents was prepared in presence of accused Ravi Kant Bansal and the same was tendered to accused Ravi Kant Bansal who acknowledged all the documents. Thereafter, on 19.10.2020, he lodged a complaint (Ex.PW1/6) with the SHO, PS Laxmi Nagar for registration of an FIR against the accused persons. During evidence before the court, case property i.e. meter no.11888561 was produced and shown to the witness who identified the meter which was removed at the time of inspection from the premises of the accused. He also pointed out two black colour Teflon FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 4 of 21 wires available in the meter terminal. The meter is Ex.P1.
9. PW2 Sh. Ravinder Kumar is the Lineman, who was one of the member of the inspection team, deposed on the similar lines as testified by PW1.
10.PW3 Sh. Ashish is the Videographer, who deposed that on 22.09.2020, at about 12.50 pm, an inspection was carried out by the enforcement team of BSES YPL at the premises of accused and on the instructions of team leader Sh. Jitin Kumar Pal (Assistant Manager), he captured the videography of inspection proceedings. He also identified the CD (Ex.PW1/1) played before the court as well as its contents.
11.PW4 ASI Satender Singh is the IO of the case, who testified that after registration of FIR, investigation of the case was marked to him. The copy of the FIR is Ex.PW4/1. Thereafter, on 30.10.2020, he visited the inspected premise and served the accused persons with the notices u/s 41.1(A) Cr.P.C (Ex.PW4/2 and Ex.PW4/3) upon which they joined the investigation and produced copies of their ID Card as well as copies of ownership documents of inspected premises which are Mark A Colly. PW4 also deposed that during investigation, it was revealed that accused Poonam Bansal was the registered consumer as well as owner of the inspected premises and accused Ravi Kant Bansal was the user of electricity at the relevant time. Thereafter, he bound down both the accused persons vide Pabandinamas Ex.PW4/4 and Ex.PW4/5. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet.
12.Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 5 of 21 recording of statements of accused persons.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED
13.All incriminating materials which have come on record in the testimony of prosecution witnesses were put to the accused persons in their statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons denied all the material allegations. However, accused persons chose not to lead any evidence to their defence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
14.Final arguments were advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
15.Ld. Addl. PP argued that the complainant company has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. AR of the complainant company also argued that accused Ravi Kant Bansal dishonestly indulged in direct theft of electricity by inserting two black colour illegal PVC Teflon wires which were found connected in the terminal of meter to bypass the metering process of electrical energy. He also emphasised that inspection was conducted as per Rules and applicable Regulations. It is prayed that accused persons be convicted under appropriate provisions of law.
16.Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, argued that accused persons are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons have not committed any theft of electricity. It is further submitted that impugned theft bill has already been settled with FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 6 of 21 the complainant company and settlement amount has already been paid and NOC has already been issued by the complainant company. It is prayed that accused persons may be acquitted.
DISCUSSION
17.At the outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce the definition of 'consumer'. The relevant provision of Section 2 (15) of the Act is produced as under: "Consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;"
18.In this case, accused Poonam Bansal was found to be registered consumer as well as owner of the inspected premises and accused Ravi Kant Bansal was found to be user at the relevant time. Perusal of Section 2 (15) of the Act shows that both the user and the owner of the premises/registered consumer are covered under the definition of the 'consumer' and thus, they are liable for punishment if illegal abstraction of energy is found at the premises of accused. In this regard, this court is also supported with the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Lokesh Chandela vs State of NCT & Ors. (Crl. Appeal No.479/2011).
19.Before dealing with the factual aspects of the present case, it is deemed appropriate to firstly specify and discuss the relevant provisions of the FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 7 of 21 Act which are required to be gone into for appropriate disposal of the case. The present case pertains to Sections 135 as well as 150 of Electricity Act. The provisions of Section 135 and150 of the Electricity Act are reproduced as under:-
Section 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 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 authorized, 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:
Section 150. Abetment. - (1) Whoever abets an offence punishable under this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
(2) Without prejudice to any penalty or fine which may be imposed or prosecution proceeding which may be initiated under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, if any officer or other employee of the Board or the licensee enters into or acquiesces in any agreement to do, abstains from doing, permits, conceals or connives at any act or thing whereby any theft of electricity is committed, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 135, sub-section (1) of section 136, section 137 and section 138, the license or certificate of competency or permit or such other authorization issued under the rules made or deemed to have been FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 8 of 21 made under this Act to any person who acting as an electrical contractor, supervisor or worker abets the commission of an offence punishable under sub-section (1) of section 135, sub-section (1) of section 136, section 137, or section 138, on his conviction for such abetment, may also be cancelled by the licensing authority:
Provided that no order of such cancellation shall be made without giving such person an opportunity of being heard.
20.Under the Act, Regulations were framed and notified by the Delhi Electricity Regularity Commission. Regulation 60 to 63 deal with theft of electricity, which are reproduced hereunder: "60. Inspections of the premises and electrical installations by Authorized officer:-
(1) The Authorized officer shall promptly conduct inspection of any premises either suo-moto or on receipt of information regarding theft of electricity:
Provided that the Authorized officer may avail the assistance of employees of the Licensee for conducting inspection. (2) The Authorized officer shall carry his visiting card bearing his photograph and photo identity card issued under Regulation 55(3). (3) Photo ID shall be shown and visiting card bearing his photograph shall be handed over to the consumer or the occupier of the premises before entering the premises and take the acknowledgment. (4) The Authorized officer shall prepare an inspection report as per the provisions under these Regulations.
61. Preparation of Report by Authorized officer:-
(1) In the event of detection of theft of electricity, the Authorized officer shall prepare a detailed Report at site, in the manner as prescribed in the Commission's Orders.
(2) All the material evidences such as tampered meter, tampered meter seal and artificial means used for illegal abstraction of energy and the documentary evidences etc., which are relevant to the case and found during the inspection, shall be seized under a seizure memo and sealed in the presence of the consumer or his authorized representative and be kept as a proof along with photography and video recording of the premises.
(3) A detailed description of the material seized, including date, time FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 9 of 21 and place and name & address of witnesses to the seizure shall be recorded on the exterior of the cover and signatures of all witnesses shall be affixed on the sealing points:
Provided that if the witness refuses to sign, the same shall be recorded in the report and captured in the videography.
(4) The inspection Report shall be signed by the Authorized officer and a copy of the same shall be handed over to the consumer or his representative at the site immediately under proper acknowledgement. The other persons present at site may also sign the inspection report. (5) If consumer or his representative at site refuses to acknowledge and accept the copy of the report, a copy of the report shall be pasted at a conspicuous place in or outside the premises and photographed and/or video recorded. Another copy of the same report shall be sent to the consumer under Registered Post or Speed Post or electronically on the same day or on the next day of the inspection. (6) The inspection report shall form the basis for further action as per the provisions contained in Regulations.
62. Procedure for prosecution for Theft of Electricity:-
(1) The prosecution for theft of electricity under section 135 of the Act shall be initiated only in the cases where dishonest intention is evident from the relevant facts, records and other evidence of the case. (2) In case sufficient evidence is found to establish theft of electricity, the Authorized officer under subsection (2) of Section 135 of the Act shall seize and seal all material evidence including wires/cables, meter, service line etc., from the premises under a seizure Memo. (3) The supply of the consumer shall be disconnected immediately on detection of theft only by such officer of the Licensee or supplier as authorised for the purpose by the Commission, under sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of the Act:
Provided that such officer shall lodge a complaint in writing in Police Station having jurisdiction over the site of occurrence of the offence within twenty four hours from time of such disconnection: Provided further that such officer shall also send to the consumer a copy of complaint lodged in Police Station, copy of speaking order under Regulation 64 along with a copy of videography of inspection within 2 (two) days of such disconnection.
(4) No case for theft shall be booked only on account of missing of the seals on the meter or on account of breakage of glass window of the meter, unless dishonest intention is corroborated by consumption FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 10 of 21 pattern of consumer or any other evidence.
(5) Interference with the accurate registration of energy consumed by resorting to external methods involving remote control, high voltage injection etc., committed by the consumer or his employee or any other person acting on his behalf, shall also constitute theft of electricity which may be established by analysis of metering data and by testing of the meter in an accredited laboratory notified by the Commission or by the agency authorized by the Commission in this regard.
63. Assessment Bill for theft of electricity:-
(1) The Assessing officer shall assess the energy for theft of electricity as notified in the Appendix I to the Regulations.
(2) The period of assessment for theft of electricity shall be for a period of 12 (twelve) months preceding the date of detection of theft of electricity or the exact period of theft if determined, whichever is less:
Provided further that period of theft of electricity shall be assessed based on the following factors:-
(i) actual period from the date of commencement of supply to the date of inspection;
(ii) actual period from the date of replacement of component of metering system in which the evidence is detected to the date of inspection;
(iii) actual period from the date of preceding checking of installation by authorized officer to date of inspection;
(iv) data recorded in the energy meter memory wherever available.
(v) based on the document being relied upon by the accused person.
(3) The assessment bill shall be prepared on two times the rate as per applicable tariff.
(4) While making the assessment bill, the Licensee shall give credit to the consumer for the electricity units already paid by the consumer for the period of the assessment bill.
(5) The assessment order shall be served upon the consumer or the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises, as the case may be, within 7 (seven) days of disconnection of supply or within 2 (two) days from the date of receipt of request of such person, whichever is earlier.
FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 11 of 21
21.As per prosecution case, at the time of inspection, one electricity meter No.11888561 was found installed at the inspected premises in the name of accused Poonam Bansal and accused Ravi Kant Bansal was found to be occupying inspected premises as user at the time of inspection and was found indulged in direct theft of electricity by inserting illegal Teflon wires in the meter terminal. Accused Poonam Bansal, being registered consumer/owner of inspected premises let/permitted/allowed the user/accused Ravi Kant Bansal commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, the onus was on the prosecution to prove these allegations against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
22.PW1 Sh. Jitin Kumar Pal (Assistant Manager), PW2 Sh. Ravinder Kumar (lineman) and PW3 Sh. Ashish (Videographer) are the material witnesses in this case. PW1 and PW2 corroborated the allegations made in the complaint (Ex.PW1/6) and deposed that despite having meter No.11888561, accused/user was indulged in direct theft of electricity with the help of two illegal PVC Teflon wires which were inserted in the meter terminal to bypass the meter. They also deposed that old meter was removed, seized and new meter was installed in place of old meter and this fact has not been disputed by the accused persons. PW1 and PW2 also identified the inspected premises, mode of inspection and user/accused Ravi Kant Bansal in the video contained in the CD (Ex.PW2/1). Both these witnesses were cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel who was unable to cull out any contradiction in their testimony. Ld. Counsel for the accused has merely put suggestions to PW2 and PW3 that no inspection took place and any such documents FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 12 of 21 were not prepared, which were denied by witnesses. Rather perusal of Inspection Report Ex.PW1/2, Load Report Ex.PW1/3, Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/4 bears the signature of user/accused Ravi Kant Bansal which indicates that accused/user was present at the spot and these documents were prepared at the spot as deposed by PW1 and PW2. During evidence, the meter no.11888561 was produced before the court and PW1 and PW2 have identified the same as the same meter which was removed and seized at the spot and they have also pointed out the illegal Teflon wires available in the meter terminal. Accused persons have not rebutted that the said illegal Teflon wires were not inserted in the meter terminal by them and have chosen not to controvert the said alleged status.
23.The depositions by PW1 and PW2 were about same incident of inspection and those were consistent in basic details with necessary corroboration from material documents proved. During evidence, the CD of the inspection proceedings was played before the court and PW1 and PW2 identified the user/accused present at the spot in the video contained in the CD Ex.PW1/1. Accused persons did not dispute the contents of the video as well as presence of the accused Ravi Kant Bansal at the spot. Accused Ravi Kant Bansal has neither disputed his identity nor the identity of the inspected premises shown in the video contained in the CD Ex.PW1/1. As per PW1 and PW2, accused Ravi Kant Bansal was indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal Teflon wires which were found inserted in the meter terminal and this fact has not been disputed by the accused persons in the cross-
FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 13 of 21 examination. Accused persons have also not disputed the correctness of the assessment of the load assessed by the officials of complainant company which is mentioned in the load report (Ex.PW1/3). Nothing contradictory could be extracted from the testimony of prosecution evidence.
24.PW1 and PW2 proved the relevant documents i.e. inspection report, load report, seizure memo and electricity bill. Load Report and Inspection Report were prepared as per applicable Regulation of the Regulation No.61 and 63(2) of the Regulation. Load x Days x Hours x Factor (LDHF) formula as provided in Appendix 1 in terms of Regulation 63 for preparation of Assessment Bill was applied and theft bill was raised accordance to Regulations. During the course of arguments, AR of the complainant has submitted that matter was settled in Permanent Lok Adalat qua civil liability and at that time, the complainant company has given a credit to the accused persons for the electricity unit already paid by the accused persons for the period of assessment as per mandate of Regulation 63(4) of the Regulation.
25.It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons that preparation of documents at the spot has not been shown in the videography. PW1 and PW2 have given detailed deposition about removal of meter on account of illegal Teflon wires inserted in the meter terminal, its seizure as well as preparation of inspection documents in the testimony sheet. Videography has also been proved by PW1 and PW2. It is note worthy that removal of meter or its seizure has not been created doubt upon, FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 14 of 21 rather theft recovered was well-videographed. In fact meter was removed and proved as case property in the court. It is settled that videography proceedings or even seizure of aforesaid meter or device used for commission of direct theft is only to lend corroboration to the oral testimony. There was nothing put to the witnesses which they are unable to explain being member of Inspection Team. Preparation of these documents have not been specifically disputed by the accused persons. Documents Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 bear signature of PW1 and PW2 as prime member of Inspection Team as well as signatures of accused Ravi Kant Bansal at point B respectively and accused persons have not disputed the same in the cross- examination of witnesses. Accused Ravi Kant Bansal did not dispute his signatures on the these documents. Those documents have been placed in original in the court and proved by PW1 and PW2. Admission is the best evidence to prove the documents/prosecution version. Preparation of Inspection Documents cannot be questioned on the sole premise that preparation was not videographed. No doubt videography of removal and seizure of meter/wire as well as preparation of Inspection Documents are recommended under applicable Regulation but propriety of process without any major lacunae cannot thwart the genuineness of entire proceedings. These are minor fallouts which cannot discredit the entire process and do not hit at the root because establishment of theft is based upon oral testimony which has been able to withheld the test of cross-examination.
26.During inspection, PW1 also issued an advisory notice. In the advisory FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 15 of 21 notice proved as Ex.PW1/5, it is clearly mentioned that in case the accused/user has anything to say against the inspection, he should file written objection thereto within four working days but the user/accused kept mum and chose not to file any objection which indicates the involvement of the accused in direct theft of electricity else he would have raised his objection before the competent authority.
27.It was also submitted on behalf of the accused that prosecution case is highly doubtful as no public witness was joined during the inspection of the premises. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that the user/accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal Teflon wires which were found inserted in the meter terminal to bypass the metering process of energy consumption and these facts have been well proved by PW1 and PW2. The video contained in the CD Ex.PW1/1 also depicted the manner in which the accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal Teflon wires. It is not disputed by the accused that at the time of inspection certain electrical appliances as mentioned in the load report were installed at the inspected premises and connected load was running through illegal wire by connecting the said illegal Teflon wires from meter terminal. Thus, it is clear from the record that the officials of the complainant company who had no animosity with the accused, testified in support of prosecution version, therefore, under these circumstances, non-joining of public witness does not affect the authenticity of the prosecution case. In this regard, this Court is supported with the case law reported as 'Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors vs Ashwani Kumar, FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 16 of 21 2010 (7) SCC 569'. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has made the following observations :-
".....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 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."
28.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 as 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 BSES officials who inspected the premises of the accused were inimical to the accused.
29.AR of the complainant company was asked to explain the mode and manner of theft. It is stated that accused/user got illegal Teflon wires inserted in meter terminal after breaking meter terminal seal and meter box seal to bypass the metering process of energy consumption. So basically electrical energy which was to be drawn through Output Terminal of Meter after registering the metering was extracted from same supply line connected to load of premises directly while some of it continued to pass through meter thus projecting that meter was perfectly fine and registering usage of energy being paid for electricity FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 17 of 21 bills ensuring at the same time that Meter retains its running position at that time. Prosecution has thus been able to prove that accused attached an external device to interfere with the actual metering of consumption of electrical energy which constitute theft of electricity. As per load report, certain electrical appliances were found installed at the inspected premises. In the load report, calculation of the load has been mentioned and accused persons have not disputed the calculation of the load as mentioned in the load report. Accused persons have not rendered any alternative explanation.
30.In view of the discussions made in the preceding paras, it is held that the prosecution has proved that the user/accused Ravi Kant Bansal who was in possession of the inspected premises at the relevant time, indulged in direct theft of electricity, in conscious knowledge with accused Poonam Bansal. Having said that such indulgence/abstraction/consumption as proved by prosecution was dishonest on the part of accused.
31.The said presumption mentioned in the third proviso of Section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as follows:-
"Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer".
32.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as '2001 (6) SCC 16 titled as Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee' has laid down the law related to the rebuttal of statutory presumption. Relevant FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 18 of 21 portion of the para no.16 is reproduced as under:-
"...Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard or reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'."
33.In view of the settled law, now it is to be seen if the accused persons have taken any defence to rebut the statutory presumption. Accused persons have simply stated in their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They stated that they have already settled the dispute and settlement amount has already been paid by them and NOC has also been issued. Accused persons did not lead any evidence to their defence. It is admitted position of fact that at the relevant time, inspected premises was being put to use by accused persons while accused Poonam Bansal was found to be the owner/registered consumer and accused Ravi Kant Bansal was found to be the user in the inspected premises at the time of inspection. Accused persons have not proved any omission on the part of prosecution be able to prove their point. Thus, it is held that accused persons have failed to rebut the statutory presumption. 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' 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 FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 19 of 21 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 had only taken the stand that inspection was not valid inspection and the photographs were not proved properly".
34.As per record, the meter No.11888561 was sanctioned in the name of accused Poonam Bansal and installed at the inspected premises for domestic purposes. Accused Poonam never tried to distance herself from act of accused Ravi Kant Bansal that she was not aware or never connected to it or tried to stop him or tried to interfere or warn authorities about it. The only explanation to proven facts is that accused Poonam Bansal was aware that illegal Teflon wires were inserted in the meter terminal to bypass the actual metering of the energy consumption. Accused Poonam Bansal is, thus, proved to have abetted/allowed/permitted accused Ravi Kant Bansal to commit direct theft of electricity.
35.Attaching any external/device with installed meter is a deliberate act. Its intent and purpose can by no means called to intrinsically be innocent. Accused persons very well knew what they wanted to achieve by indulging in it so they had ill intention writ large in its commission.
36.In view of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the user/accused Ravi Kant Bansal dishonestly indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 20 of 21 Teflon wires. It is also proved on record that accused Poonam Bansal was the registered consumer and owner of inspected premises and accused/user Ravi Kant Bansal has been proved to have indulged in direct theft of electricity by attaching illegal external device. Accused Poonam Bansal being the owner/registered consumer, let/permitted/consciously allowed the user/accused Ravi Kant Bansal commit direct theft of electricity. Thus, accused Poonam Bansal is guilty of abetment of offence of direct theft of electricity. Accordingly, accused/user Ravi Kant Bansal stands convicted for the offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act and accused Poonam Bansal is convicted for the offence punishable U/s 135 r/w Section 150 of the Digitally Electricity Act 2003.
signed by
SHELLY SHELLY
ARORA
ARORA Date:
2023.03.21
17:00:20 -0300
(Shelly Arora)
Addl. Sessions Judge (Electricity)
East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
Announced in open
court on 21.03.2023
FIR No.486/2020 State vs Poonam Bansal & Anr. 21 of 21