Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Witnesses of the company admitted that one meter bearing no. 13606571 was installed and registered consumer of the said meter was accused, but they did not file any record which shows that accused was the actual registered consumer of the premises.

They did not procure any documents pertaining to the ownership / occupancy on record. No inquiry on the aspect of occupancy of the premises was made. They have no written authority to conduct the raid at the premises. No independent person was joined at the time of inspection / seizure of case property. It was further submitted that there was no evidence on record which connect the theft with the accused. The company failed to prove the occupation of accused in the inspected premise. It was contended that company had failed to prove its case so, accused is entitled to be acquitted in this case.

9. The company did not procure the documents pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises. No inquiry in this respect was conducted by the company at the time of inspection or before filing the present complaint. All the above noted facts were considered in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Crl. L.P.No. 598/2013 decided on 21.01.2014 titled as BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Guddu wherein, the order of trial court was confirmed in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the documents of occupancy / ownership.