Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The documents of ownership / occupancy were not procured by the team. 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 material evidence on record which connect the theft with the accused. The company failed to prove the occupation of accused persons in the inspected premise. It was contended that company had failed to prove its case so, accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in this case.

explained. The fact of said non compliance i.e signing or pasting the inspection reports was not reported to the police. The lady who met at the spot was neither named in the complaint, inspection reports, nor in examination in chief of witnesses. It was stated by PW-2 in cross examination that there were other meters installed at the said premises however, he do not remember there numbers.

10. 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.