Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Brief reasons for the decision of the case.

1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.06.1998, a joint team of DVB raided the premises at Village-Ghevra, Delhi where accused Vipin was also found stealing the electricity by using connected load of 50-3/6 KW for industrial purpose directly from the DVB LV Mains with the help of illegal wires. A joint inspection report was prepared. Raided premises was photographed and thereafter a complaint was made to P.S. Kanjhawala. The investigation of case was conducted and during the investigation site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested and after completing the other formal investigation, the challan was presented before the court for trial.

In his cross examination, PW6 has testified that the bill was not prepared by him and the same was also not prepared in his presence. Further the case property was not in sealed condition and the JIR was prepared at the site which is of three pages. He further testified that they were eight DVB officials. PW6 further testified that he cannot say whether accused was there at the time of raid and accused is not figured in the photographs. Further they had not collected any documents regarding the ownership or the user of the premises. Further PW6 testified that they verbally inquired from the nearby person about the ownership of the said factory but they did not recorded their statements. PW6 has denied the suggestion to the effect that accused was not the user or owner of the premises.

7. It is the case of prosecution that DVB official conducted the raid in premises at Village Ghevra on 05.06.1998 where direct theft of electricity from LV Mains Line by using connected load of 50-3/6 KW for industrial purpose was found. It was revealed during raid that accused Vipin was the user of the premises So case F.I.R. was registered against him.

8. To prove its case the prosecution has to establish one of the ingredients that accused Vipin was the user of premises situated at Village Ghevra where raid was conducted and the direct theft of electricity was deducted. To prove that accused was the user of the premises prosecution has examined six witnesses out of them PW6 is the raiding witness of premises.

11. The depositions of prosecution witnesses not only shows the sloppy investigation but also that there was practically no cogent evidence to connect accused Vipin with the user of the electricity at the raided premises at Village Ghevra.

12. In view of above discussions, prosecution has failed to prove that accused Vipin was the user/owner of the premises situated at Village Ghevra where direct theft of electricity from DVB Mains was found during raid. Accordingly, accused Vipin is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 39 I.E. Act r/w. 379 IPC for which he stands charged.