Delhi District Court
State vs . Reenu Thakur @ Renu Thakur Fir ... on 9 July, 2020
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CIS No. : 560/2018
SC NO. : 209/2018
FIR No. : 999/15
PS. : Mehrauli
Under Section : 135 of Electricity Act, 2003
STATE
Versus
Smt Reenu Thakur @ Renu Thakur
W/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
H.No.A142 First Floor Paryavaran Complex
Saidullazab, New Delhi
...ACCUSED
Case instituted on : 20.10.2018
Judgment reserved on : 23.06.2020
Judgment pronounced on : 09.07.2020
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that a complaint was received at police station Mehrauli on the basis of which above said FIR no.999/2015 was registered under Section 135 Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused. STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 1 of 14 2
2. Brief facts of the case as per prosecution are that on 16.09.2014 one meter number not visible (as per bill no. 12478749) was replaced by MMG being burnt meter upon suspicion of tampering from the premises i.e. A142, First Floor, Right portion Paryavaran Complex, Saidulajab, Neb Sarai, New Delhi 110030. It was seized vide bag seal no. 472617 and bag no. 613540 and sent to meter testing laboratory with an intimation to consumer that she may witness the testing/analysis of meter in laboratory. The removed meter was tested in laboratory on 13.10.2014 vide lab report no. BR141001957 and as per said meter testing/analysis report, the meter hologram seals found not visible, LCD/LED of the meter were not found Ok, meter terminal block found abnormal burnt, meter found bypass through two illegal copper wires on terminal block and the data could not be downloaded and accuracy could not be done and, thus it was concluded that meter found tampered.
3. On the basis of laboratory report, an inspection team comprising of officials of complainant company inspected the premises in question on 16.12.2014 at 11.30 a.m. for assessing the connected load. During inspection, accused was found as registered consumer as well as user of the electricity supply at the premises in question.
STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 2 of 14 3
4. It is the case of the prosecution/complainant that the inspection team prepared the joint inspection report including the meter detail report and load report at site. Videography was also carried out during inspection. At the time of inspection, total connected load was found to be 13.835 KW for domestic purpose. Showcause notice dated 13.01.2015 was issued to the accused to attend the personal hearing on 23.02.2015. Accused attended the personal hearing and stated that she owned first floor which is 100 sq. yards and the meter was installed at the ground floor (parking space) with other meter. She further stated that she has no idea of tampering in meter. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the Speaking Order was passed on 16.03.2015 by the Assessing Officer recording the finding of a conclusive evidence of DAE.
5. On the basis of connected load & applicable tariff, theft bill of Rs.65,317/ was raised with due date of 31.03.2015. On failure of accused to pay the same, present complaint was filed.
6. Ld. predecessor of Court took cognizance of the offence punishable U/sec.135 of the Act, 2003 on 07.12.2018 and summons were issued to the accused. She appeared on 19.07.2019 and was enlarged on bail.
STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 3 of 14 4
7. Notice of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was put to her to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and submitted that she has already settled the matter with the complainant in the office of the complainant and obtained NOC from towards civil liability.
8. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses earlier however, it is pertinent to mention here that on 11.03.2020 when the case was fixed for orders it was observed by the Court that the prosecution has not examined the Assessing Officer as well as lab official who has tested the meter in question and accordingly the witness from the lab was examined on behalf of prosecution, which have been discussed below.
9. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. separately on 19.02.2020 however, again on 16.03.2020 the statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. separately. Accused pleaded her innocence and denied the evidence on the ground that she had not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant company and submitted that false and fabricated case has been filed against her. Accused has further submitted that she had obtained NOC towards civil liability. She further did not opt for defence evidence.
STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 4 of 14 5
10. I have heard arguments on behalf of both parties through video conferencing via Cisco Webex and also gone through the record.
11. PW1 Duty Officer/ASI Ishwar Singh, who registered the present FIR and proved the same as Ex.PW1/A (OSR) and the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/B. In his crossexamination, PW1 replied that he did not have personal knowledge of the present case.
12. PW2 Sh.SonuVideographer has deposed that he conducted the videography during inspection and correctly identified the videography and proved the same exhibited as Ex. PW2/A.
13. PW3 Sh.Rajeev Kumar TripathiSenior Manager, BRPL, who deposed that on 16.12.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. he alongwith Sh.Inderjeet DET, Sh.RanjanLineman and Sh.Sonuvodepgrapher visited and inspected the premises i.e. A142, First Floor, Right Side Paryavaran Complex, Saidullajab, Saket, New Delhi, as per the reference of lab report. He further deposed that as per said lab report, the meter was found tampered and thus, visited the premises in question for the purpose to assess the connected load which was found to be 13.8 KW approximately for residential purpose. He further STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 5 of 14 6 deposed that documents/report i.e. inspection report, load report and the seizure memo (as per lab report) were prepared at site and proved the same as Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C. He further deposed that necessary videography was also conducted at site by the Sonuvideographer and identified the videography containing in CD Ex.PW2/A. He further proved his complaint to the SHO PS.Mehrauli regarding theft of electricity and for the registration of FIR against accused as Ex.PW3/D. In his crossexamination on behalf of complainant company, PW3 replied that he is not aware of any complaint made by the present accused to the department for the replacement of meter in question. He denied the suggestion that connected load was not checked properly. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW3/D is a false complaint against accused without any material basis.
14. PW4 ASI Madan Singh who has deposed that on 11.04.2015 he was posted at PS. Mehrauli as HC and on that day, the present FIR was marked to him however, he was got transferred from the said PS on 15.04.2015 and the case file handed over to MHC (R).
15. PW5 ASI Amir Khan who has deposed that on 12.12.2015 he was posted at PS. Mehrauli as HC and on that day the present FIR case was marked to him STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 6 of 14 7 for investigation by concerned SHO. He tried to trace the premises in question during investigation and thereafter he got transferred from the said PS and the present case file was handed over to the MHC(R).
16. PW6 HC Mahender Singh is the IO in the present case. He deposed that he visited the office of the complainant and recorded the statement of raiding team under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that he served notice under Section 41 A Cr.P.C. on 14.09.2015 and proved the same as Ex.PW 6/B. He further deposed that site plan was prepared by him at the instance of complainant Sh.Rajeev Kumar Tripathi on 16.09.2018 vide Ex.PW6/C. He identified the accused, who was present in the Court, on the day of his deposition. In his crossexamination, PW6 denied the suggestion that he did not conduct fair and proper investigation in the present case.
17. PW7, Sh.G.B.BarapatreDGM (Finance), who proved the theft bill vide Ex.PW7/A. In crossexamination, PW7 replied that he was not a member of the inspection team and hence he had no personal knowledge of the case. He admitted that he prepared the theft bill at his office on the basis of document provided to him by the complainant. He admitted that he did not peruse the CD containing the videography of the inspection while preparing the theft bill. STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 7 of 14 8 He denied the suggestion that theft bill has not been prepared as per the DERC regulation.
18. PW8 Sh. Saurabh Vashista Engineer who proved the testing of meter in question bearing no.12478749 on 13.10.2014. He deposed that upon visual observation of the meter in question it was found that the meter in question was abnormally burnt and two illegal wires found connected in terminal block of the meter in question. LED & LCD found not OK. The accuracy of the meter in question could not be done as the meter was abnormally burnt and thus on the basis of said observation, the meter in question was declared as tampered vide energy meter test/analysis report bearing no. BR141001957 dated 13.10.2014 vide Ex.PW8/A. He identified the meter as Ex.P1 as the same tested by him in the laboratory. He further deposed that the lab report was approved by Ms. Vaishali BansalAssistant Manager.
19. In his crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW8 denied the suggestion that the meter in question was not tampered.
20. On 16.03.2020 the statement of accused Reenu Thakur was recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C. whereby admitting the genuineness/contents of the STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 8 of 14 9 Speaking Order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer Mr. Yatish Oli as Ex.PX.
21. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant company that on 16.09.2014 one meter number not visible (as per bill no. 12478749) was replaced by MMG being burnt meter upon suspect to be tampered from the premises i.e. A142, First Floor, Right portion Paryavaran Complex, Saidulajab, Neb Sarai, New Delhi110030, which was seized vide bag seal no. 472617 and bag no. 613540 and sent to meter testing laboratory with an intimation to consumer that she may witness the testing/analysis of meter in laboratory. The removed meter was tested in laboratory on 13.10.2014 vide lab report no. BR141001957 and as per said meter testing/analysis report, the meter hologram seals found not visible, LCD/LED of the meter were not found Ok, meter terminal block found abnormal burnt, meter found bypass through two illegal copper wires on terminal block and the data could not be downloaded and accuracy could not be done and, thus it was concluded that meter found tampered one. It is further submitted that on 16.12.2014, inspection team consisted of officials of the complainant company visited the premises in question for the purpose of assessing connected load which was found to be 13.835 KW for domestic purpose. Necessary documents were STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 9 of 14 10 prepared alongwith videography also carried out by the videographer as per instruction of the team leader.
22. On the basis of report of laboratory and the load report, speaking order was passed by the assessing officer and accordingly, the present theft bill was raised for an amount of Rs.65,317/.
23. It is further submitted by ld. counsel for complainant company that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, complainant company has examined eight (08) witnesses who have duly proved the connected load at the premises in question and also that the meter in question was tampered. It is further submitted that as per Energy meter test/Analysis report the meter in question found bypassed by using two illegal copper wire on terminal block and hence it was declared as tampered by the laboratory vide its report no. BR141001957 and accordingly, the speaking order was passed by the Assessing officer Yatish Oli on 16.03.2015.
24. It is further submitted that PW1 is the duty officer who has proved the FIR in the present case. PW2 is the videographer who has proved the videography conducted during inspection at site containing in compact disc Ex.PW2/A. STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 10 of 14 11 PW3 is the team leader who conducted inspection at the premises in question in order to assess the connected load and he has duly identified the documents prepared at site and also identified the videography. It is further submitted that PW4, PW5 and PW6 were the investigating officers in the present case. It is further submitted that PW7 has proved the theft bill in the present case. PW8 has proved the testing of meter in question which was found tampered and also proved the Energy Meter Test/Analysis Report bearing no. BR141001957 as Ex.PW8/A. Lastly, it was submitted that accused has himself admitted the contents of Speaking Order dated 16.03.2015 as Ex.PX vide her statement recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C, thus, prosecution has proved all the aforesaid ingredients. Lastly it is argued on behalf of complainant company that prosecution is successful in discharging its onus and now the burden shifts upon the accused to prove his defence, if any.
25. The accused is not supposed to prove his defence 'beyond reasonable doubt' under the law and if any economic law shifts the burden on the accused to rebut any presumption, the extent of onus to be discharged by him has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Hiten P. Dalal Vs Bratindranath Banerjee cited as 2001 (6) SCC 16 in para 20 as follows: STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 11 of 14 12 ".....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'."
26. In view of the said law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, let me consider if the accused has taken any defence. Accused has submitted in notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. put against her and in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that she has already cleared the civil liability and simply denied the evidence on the ground that she was not committing any dishonest abstraction of energy.
27. Admittedly, there is no dispute as regards identity of accused and premises is concerned. Even otherwise, the identity of the accused Reenu Thakur and identity of the premises in question has been duly proved by the witness i.e. PW3 (team leader). There is also no dispute with regard to the connection of accused with the premises in question. As regards theft of electricity being committed at the premises in question by way of dishonest abstraction of energy is concerned, it is established from the lab report prepared after testing STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 12 of 14 13 meter in question vide lab report no.BR141001957 dated 13.10.2014 duly proved by PW8 that meter terminal block found abnormal burnt, meter found bypassed by using two illegal copper wires on terminal block, meter LED and LCD were found not OK and thus, it was concluded vide said report that the meter was tampered. Moreover, vide statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. accused has herself admitted the genuineness/contents of the Speaking Order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer.
28. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in NDPL Vs. Bhasin Motors Pvt. Ltd, LPA No. 1082/2007 & CM 9601/2007, has held as under: "6. The seal of a meter can be tampered with only by intervention of a human being and not otherwise.
Similarly, the seals cannot go missing of their own and are necessarily removed by a human being. Likewise, there can be no scratches on the dial unless an attempt is made to interfere with the functioning of the meter. Since as per SubRegulation 17(iv) the responsibility of keeping the meter under safe custody lie with the consumer and as per Regulation (vii) during any inspection or on consumer complaint or suo moto, the licensee is required to ensure that the meter is not tampered/bypassed, it was for the respondent to explain how the meter box seal got tampered, cover seal went missing and scratches came on the dial plate.
9. ...In our opinion, the tampering of the seals and/or the meter by itself would be conclusive evidence substantiating unlawful abstraction of energy in a case where no acceptable explanation is given by the STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 13 of 14 14 consumer for the seals and/or the meter having been found tampered with. Taking any other view would make it extremely difficult to establish unlawful abstraction of energy by dishonest consumers.
During the Course of arguments, we specifically asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to how unlawful abstraction of energy was possible in a case of this nature and he explained that if the seals are tampered in the manner found in this case, it is possible for the consumer to temporarily stop running of the meter so as to avoid recording of consumption of electricity, during the period the meter does not run. According to the learned counsel, the consumer can, as and when he so desires, resume running of meter so that at the time of inspection by the officials of the licensee, the meter is found running. We, therefore, need to take interpretation which would discourage such dishonest practices on the part of the unscrupulous consumers of electricity."
29. From the above discussion, I am of considered opinion that Prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt coupled with the fact that she has already cleared the civil liability towards the theft bill and also obtained NOC from the complainant company. Accordingly, the accused Reenu Thakur @ Renu Thakur is held guilty and convicted for the offence U/sec 135 & 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Let the file to come up for quantum of sentence and determination of civil liability today itself.
Announced in the open (SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH)
court on this 09.07.2020 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
Digitally signed by SPL. ELECTRICITY COURT
SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH
KUMAR SINGH Date: 2020.07.09 SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
13:39:39 +0530
STATE Vs. REENU THAKUR @ RENU THAKUR FIR No.999/2015 Page no. 14 of 14