Delhi District Court
) Brief Facts Of The Case Are That On ... vs Unknown on 26 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
ASJ( ELECTRICITY) :NW DISTRICT:ROHINI: DELHI
Session Case No. 52981/2016
FIR No. 967/15
Police Station : Jahangir Puri
Title: State
v.
Seikh Suleman
S/o Seikh Imitaz Ali,
R/o G536, T Huts,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
U/S 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003
Date of Institution: 15.02.2016
Date of Reserving for Order: 26.9.2016
Date of Pronouncement: 26.9.2016
(Appearances)
Sh. A.B. Asthana, Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Seikh Suleman.
JUDGMENT
1) Brief facts of the case are that on 09.10.2015, a raid was conducted by the joint inspection team of the complainant company at the premises i.e. Jhuggi No. 536, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. The case of prosecution is that during the inspection, members of the joint inspection team had found that accused Seikh Suleman was committing direct theft of electricity by tapping TPDDL LV Mains. At the time of inspection, a load of 24.750 KW was found connected for commercial purpose. On the basis of the inspection, a complaint was lodged with SHO Police Station Jahangir Puri by Shri Ram Narayan, FIR No. 967/15 PS Jahangir Puri State v. Seikh Suleman Page No. 1 / 10 Head Of Group (Enforcement), TPDDL. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR was registered on 26.10.2015 for commission of offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
2) After recording statements of the witnesses and completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 15.02.2016.
3) After appearance of the accused, documents were supplied to him and charge for committing offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was framed against accused Seikh Suleman to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) The prosecution in support of its case has examined six witnesses.
5) PW1 Head Ct. Manoj, is duty officer who proved complaint as Ex. PW1/A and computer generated FIR as Ex. PW1/B and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/C.
6) PW2 Sh. Kishore (Photographer) proved 35 photographs taken at the spot on 09.10.2015 with the help of digital camera as Ex. PW2/A collectively. He also proved certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW2/B. On being crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused Seikh Suleman he stated that he had been informed by Manager, TPDDL that he had to join the inspection team for taking photographs. He stated that there were 910 officials in the raiding team. He stated that the Investigating Officer had recorded his FIR No. 967/15 PS Jahangir Puri State v. Seikh Suleman Page No. 2 / 10 statement at PS Jahangir Puri, but he did not remember as to when his statement was recorded.
7) PW3 Shri Ram Narayan is the complainant who proved the complaint as Ex. PW3/A. He stated that he had lodged complaint dated 26.10.2015 on the basis of original inspection report, seizure memo, thirty five photographs, one CD handed over to him by the Inspection Team Members. He stated that the Inspection Team Member had conducted a raid at the premises of accused Seikh Suleman at Jhuggi No. 536, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and had found that theft of electricity was being committed by illegally tapping TPDDL LV Mains.
On being crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused he admitted that he had not visited the site for the purpose of inspection. He had not given any other documents with the complaint to the police except aforesaid documents.
8) PW4 Shri Rinku Aggarwal is one of the raiding team members who stated that on 09.10.2015 he alongwith Sh. Ravi Kishan, Sh. Rocky Singh, Sh. Kishore (Photographer) and Sh. Prashant Singh had inspected the premises in question. He further stated that at the time of inspection accused Sheikh Suleman was found committing theft of electricity by illegally tapping from TPDDL LV Mains. He proved inspection report as Ex. PW4/A and seizure memo as Ex. PW4/B. He identified and proved the case property i.e. PVC Multi Stand Copper Wire of red colour measuring about 38 meters in two pieces as Ex. P1.
On being crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused he stated that they had not received any complaint from any person FIR No. 967/15 PS Jahangir Puri State v. Seikh Suleman Page No. 3 / 10 regarding theft of electricity. He stated that he has no idea as to how many connections had been given to the consumers from the transformer from which the accused was committing theft of electricity. He stated that they had not inquired as to whose E Rickshaws were being charged by illegally tapping and stealing electricity. He denied that the accused was only present at the spot being a spectator. He denied that nothing had been seized from the possession of the accused or that his signatures had been taken as a witness of inspection on the documents.
9) PW5 Shri Ravi Kishan is also one of the members of the raiding team who stated similar facts regarding theft of electricity as deposed by PW4 Sh. Rinku Aggarwal. He also identified the accused as well as the case property in the Court. He stated that the accused was present at the spot at the time of the inspection. On being crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused he stated that they had not received any complaint from any person regarding theft of electricity. He stated that he has no idea as to how many connections had been given to the consumers from the transformer from which the accused was committing theft of electricity. He stated that they had not inquired as to whose E Rickshaws were being charged by illegally tapping of wires. He denied that the accused was only present at the spot being a spectator. He denied that nothing had been seized from the possession of the accused or that his signatures had been taken as a witness of inspection on the documents.
10) PW6 Head Ct. Ranbir Singh stated that on 26.10.2015, an FIR was lodged on the basis of complaint Ex. PW3/A and FIR No. 967/15 PS Jahangir Puri State v. Seikh Suleman Page No. 4 / 10 investigation was marked to him. He stated that on 03.11.2015 case property was handed over to him by Sh. Rinku Aggarwal. He had sealed the same with the seal of RS and had taken it into possession. He proved the seizure memo vide which he had taken the case property in his possession as Ex. PW6/A, site plan as Ex. PW6/B. He stated that he had interrogated that accused and after interrogation he was released on personal bond. He proved the same as Ex. PW6/C. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses, had completed investigation and had filed charge sheet in the Court.
On being crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused he stated that on 21.10.2015 he had not visited the site in question. He stated that on 03.11.2015 he had visited the site in question alongwith the inspection team members. He stated that he had not recorded statements of independent witnesses.
11) Ld. Additional PP for the State has dropped PWSh. Rocky Singh and Sh. Prashant Singh from the list of witnesses as PW4 Sh. Rinku Aggarwal and PW5 Sh. Ravi Kishan were already examined on the same facts.
12) Prosecution Evidence was closed by Shri A.B. Asthana, learned Additional PP for State vide his separate statement.
13) Statement of accused Seikh Suleman under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he has denied the allegations levelled against him. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case with the connivance of TPDDL. Accused Seikh Suleman has not led defence evidence.
FIR No. 967/15 PS Jahangir Puri State v. Seikh Suleman Page No. 5 / 1014) Final arguments were heard at length. I have heard learned Additional PP for the State and learned defence counsel. I have also gone through the case file, statements of the witnesses and the photographs which have been filed on record.
15) Sh. A.B. Asthana, Ld. Additional PP for the State has stated that all the witnesses have deposed clearly regarding theft of electricity being committed by accused Seikh Suleman and the manner of theft of electricity is also clear with the help of photographs. Ld. APP for the State has stated that the case property as well as the accused have been identified by the witnesses who have been examined and, therefore, accused Seikh Suleman be convicted.
16) Ld. Counsel for accused Seikh Suleman on the other hand has stated that there is nothing on record to connect the alleged accused with the alleged offence, and, therefore, he be acquitted.
17) Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 under which charge has been framed against the accused, reads as under : "Section 135 Theft of Electricity : 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 FIR No. 967/15 PS Jahangir Puri State v. Seikh Suleman Page No. 6 / 10 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 authorised, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both: "
18) In the light of above law, let me examine the testimonies of the witnesses to conclude as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused or not.
19) I have heard arguments and have gone through testimonies of the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution as well as documents filed by the Investigating Officer, I am of the opinion that all the witnesses of the prosecution who are official witnesses being raiding team members have admitted in their cross examination that at the time of inspection they had not collected any proof from the spot as to who were owners of the 35 ERickshaws whose batteries were illegally charged with stolen electricity. There is no independent witness either to the proceedings or to prove the fact that the accused was illegally recharging the batteries of 35 E Rickshaws which were allegedly found at the spot.FIR No. 967/15 PS Jahangir Puri State v. Seikh Suleman Page No. 7 / 10
20) The inspecting team members have also not collected proof of ownership of the ERickshaws which were being illegally charged, neither the batteries of the ERickshaws which were being recharged were seized despite being the case property in this case.
No reason has been given as to why the case property i.e. the batteries of ERickshaws were not seized from the spot.
21) The Investigating Officer has also not investigated as to why during investigation, he had not tried to collect the proof of ownership of the ERickshaws which were being illegally recharged. Neither the Investigating Officer, nor inspecting team members have collected any evidence that the accused was charging money from the owners of the ERickshaws which were being illegally charged by the accused by committing theft of electricity.
22) Ld. Additional PP as argued that the photographs which have been filed on record depict the presence of accused as well as the illegal wires which prove that accused Seikh Suleman was committing theft of electricity for recharging the ERickshaws. I however, do not agree with this contention of Ld. Additional PP for the State since mere presence of a person at the spot without there being any supporting evidence to prove that he was recharging E Rickshaws belonging to some other person cannot conclusively prove theft of electricity being committed by the accused. Ld. Additional PP for the State has also stated that the proof of residence as well as Aadhar Card of the accused have also been filed on record which proves that the accused is a resident of that locality.
FIR No. 967/15 PS Jahangir Puri State v. Seikh Suleman Page No. 8 / 10However, I do not agree with this contention also since the fact that a person is residing in the same locality does not prove or lead to conclusion of his committing theft of electricity for the purpose he is charged for.
23) No independent witness or the owners of the ERickshaws in question have been examined or made witnesses in this case to connect the accused with the alleged offence. They were the best witnesses to have deposed as to whether the accused used to charge their ERickshaws and that they used to pay him any amount for same.
24) The place of occurrence i.e. the alleged theft of electricity is open spot i.e. Government Land. Therefore, it was duty of the prosecution to have collected evidence that the accused had authorizably allowed the owners of the 35 ERickshaws to park their vehicles in that area and had charged them financially for recharging Batteries. The investigation in this case has thus not revealed as to how the accused is connected with the alleged offence.
25) In light of the discussion made above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. I, therefore, acquit accused Seikh Suleman of the charged offence.
26) Accused Seikh Suleman is directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety (latest passport size photo and residential address proof) of the like amount in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months with the condition that he FIR No. 967/15 PS Jahangir Puri State v. Seikh Suleman Page No. 9 / 10 shall appear before the Hon'ble Appellant Court as and when called for.
27) Previous bail bond of accused Seikh Suleman stands cancelled. His previous surety stands discharged. Documents, if any, be released to him after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
28) Case property be destroyed as per law.
29) File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court
on 26th day of September, 2016 (SWARANA KANTA SHARMA)
ASJ (ELECTRICITY) NW
ROHINI : DELHI
FIR No. 967/15 PS Jahangir Puri State v. Seikh Suleman Page No. 10 / 10