Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Accused Pheru Dutt Sharma has been facing trial upon the allegation that he intentionally indulged in an act amounting to theft of electricity and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. On 15.03.2023, at about 1.15 pm, an inspection was conducted by the Inspection Team of BSES YPL at the premises of accused i.e. H.No. B-221, Gali No.6, Biharipur Extension, Delhi-110094. At the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at site and the user/accused was found indulged in direct theft of electricity with the help of two core black colour PVC aluminium FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 1 of 19 cable which was found connected from BSES Distribution Box of Pole No.KWN VJ 44. At the time of inspection, total connected load was found to the tune of 2.113 KW which was being used for domestic purposes at the inspected premises. Necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was done by videographer Sh. Raju. Illegal wire was removed by the lineman and seized at the spot. All the necessary documents like inspection report, load report and seizure memo were prepared at the spot.

8. PW2 Sh. Virender Kumar is Diploma Trainee Engineer (DET) who deposed that on 15.03.2013, at about 115 pm, an inspection was conducted by the Enforcement Team of BSES YPL comprising of himself, Sh. Jograj Singh (Sr. Manager), Sh. Veer Singh Rana (Lineman), Sh. Pawan (Lineman) and Sh. Raju (Videographer) at the premises of accused i.e. H.No.P-221, Gali No.6, Biharipur Extension, Delhi-110094. At the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found installed at the premises of accused and accused was found indulged in theft of electricity with the help of illegal wire which was found connected from BSES LV Main. PW2 further deposed that at the time of inspection, total connected load was found to the tune of 2.113 KW which was being used for domestic purposes at the entire inspected premises. Necessary videography of the inspection proceedings was captured by the Videographer Sh. Raju. The CD of videography is proved on record as Ex.PW2/1. During evidence, the CD was played on the laptop and after seeing FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 3 of 19 the CD, PW2 identified the video which was captured by videographer. During inspection, the inspection report Ex.PW2/2 and the load report Ex.PW2/3 were prepared at the spot. The illegal wire was removed by lineman Sh. Veer Singh Rana and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/4. Entire inspection documents prepared at site during inspection were tendered to accused to sign but he refused to sign and accept the same. PW2 further deposed that Sh. Jograj (Sr. Manager) lodged a complaint Ex.PW2/5 against the accused with SHO, PS Khajuri Khas.

(3) A detailed description of the material seized, including date, time and place and name & address of witnesses to the seizure shall be recorded on the exterior of the cover and signatures of all witnesses shall be affixed on the sealing points:
Provided that if the witness refuses to sign, the same shall be recorded in the report and captured in the videography.
(4) The inspection Report shall be signed by the Authorized officer and a copy of the same shall be handed over to the consumer or his FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 7 of 19 representative at the site immediately under proper acknowledgement. The other persons present at site may also sign the inspection report. (5) If consumer or his representative at site refuses to acknowledge and accept the copy of the report, a copy of the report shall be pasted at a conspicuous place in or outside the premises and photographed and/or video recorded. Another copy of the same report shall be sent to the consumer under Registered Post or Speed Post or electronically on the same day or on the next day of the inspection. (6) The inspection report shall form the basis for further action as per the provisions contained in Regulations.

21.It was also argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the seizure of FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 10 of 19 wires which were used for theft and even preparation of inspection documents was not videographed. PW2 and PW3 have given detailed deposition about removal of wire, its seizure as well as preparation of inspection documents in the testimony sheet. Videography about inspection having taken place and manner of commission of direct theft also has been proved by PW2 and PW3. It is note worthy that removal of wire or its seizure has not been created doubt upon, rather theft recovered was well- videographed. It is settled that videography proceedings or even seizure of illegal cable or device used for commission of direct theft is only to lend corroboration to the oral testimony. There was nothing put to the witnesses which they were unable to explain being members of Inspection Team. Documents prepared bear signature of PW2 and PW3 as prime members of Inspection Team. Those documents have been placed in original in the court and proved by PW2 and PW3. Just because removal of illegal cable or seizure was not videographed, it would not falsify the testimony of PW2 and PW3 which squarely indicates and explains about Inspection Proceedings. Similarly, preparation of Inspection Documents cannot be questioned on the sole premise that preparation was not videographed. Further, same is not recommended under applicable Regulations. It is settled that propriety of process without any major lacunae cannot thwart the genuineness of entire proceedings. These are minor fallouts which cannot discredit the entire process and do not hit at the root FIR No.180/2013 State vs Pheru Dutt Sharma 11 of 19 because establishment of theft is based upon oral testimony which has been able to withheld the test of cross-examination. Nothing contradictory could be extracted from the testimony of prosecution witnesses during cross-examination and the testimony of witnesses has been consistent and thus, the factum of inspection, preparation of documents as well as presence of the accused at the spot and videography of inspection proceedings done by videographer stand proved.