Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: check meter in Cc No. 424439/16, Bses vs . Pardeep Kumar Page No. 1 Of 27. on 25 February, 2021Matching Fragments
CC No. 424439/16, BSES Vs. Pardeep Kumar Page No. 4 of 27.
PW 1 further proved the inspection report, load report and seizure memo and proved the same vide Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/C bearing his signatures at point A. PW 1 further deposed that the said reports were prepared at site were offered to the accused Pradeep Kumar who received and signed over the documents.
During cross examination by counsel for accused, PW 1 deposed that it is correct that email allegedly received from Energy Management Group has not been placed on record. PW 1 further deposed during cross examination that the said email was received by the concerned DGM and he had forwarded to him and the same on 28.05.2013 I.e the date of inspection. PW 1 further deposed during his cross examination that during inspection they have taken the accu check, CMRI, piler along with them. PW 1 further deposed during cross examination that it is correct that he did not file any calibration certificate of accu check machine and CMRI instrument and he himself checked the different parameters showing in the meter. PW 1 denied the suggestion that he himself checked the different parameters showing in the meter or that no said email has been received by him from the DGM or that the accu check and CMRI instrument are defective ones and thereby no calibration certificate of accu check and CMRI has been filed in the court record. PW 1 further deposed during cross examination that he is not aware about the employee Chander Prakash from BSES and he is not aware whether the subject meter was checked by Chander Prakash CC No. 424439/16, BSES Vs. Pardeep Kumar Page No. 5 of 27.
10. DW 2 Sh. Chandra Prakash, Engineer BSES, deposed that on 17.05.2013 he was posted as an Engineer with BSES Rajdhani Power Limited and the document Ex.PW 1/C was prepared by him in his handwriting and upon the instruction received by him from KCC department of BSES, he visited Arya Flour Mill Plot No. 323, Khasra No. 195/2, Industrial Area Village, Nangli Sakrawati, New Delhi. DW 2 further deposed that on 17.05.2013, he tested the meter bearing no. 29506368 installed at the premises in question and during periodical meter check, the meter was found to be within limit and he has checked the meter seals before he tested the meter. DW 2 further deposed CC No. 424439/16, BSES Vs. Pardeep Kumar Page No. 18 of 27.
of e mail on record calls for an adverse inference against the complainant.
16. I have perused the Speaking Order Ex.PW3/A which clearly shows that the alleged tampered meter and CT Box were not produced before the Assessing Officer and order Ex.PW3/A was passed without observing the meter and CT Box. It is mentioned in the speaking order that the insulation tape found wrapped on left side of CT Box wire and covered tap found damaged inside the CT Box wire (right side and left side) and illegal re soldering found on left of CT Box wire Yphase current (input and output). After segregation of the meter, accuracy check with accucheck instrument and CMRI data of the meter was downloaded. There is no reference as to when Assessing Officer had examined the member of raiding team. The speaking order fails to specify as to how the reading of accuchek meter were observed by the assessing officer as it was never mentioned that he had perused the accuchek meter. Further, the accuchek meter was also not produced in the court. The speaking order also failed to mention that PW3 has gone through the videography taken by the inspecting team on this aspect. The tampering in the meter can be proved by testing the meter in the laboratory. The meter in question was tested in the laboratory. The laboratory report Ex.CW2/A does not corroborate the visual observations of PW1. PW 3 deposed during his cross examination that it is correct that when the inspection was conducted on 28.05.2013, no external CC No. 424439/16, BSES Vs. Pardeep Kumar Page No. 24 of 27.
device was found in and around the meter as per the observation of the inspecting team. PW 3 also deposed during is cross examination that in the present case the connected load was less than the sanctioned load. DW 2 also deposed that all the parameters of the meter were found intact and the same have been shown against the test results. DW 2 also deposed that the meter box seals were found intact and the same were opened by him and after testing the meter he resealed the meter with two new seals. DW 2 also deposed that he tested the meter bearing No. 29506368 installed at the premises in question and during periodical meter check, the meter was found to be within limit. DW 2 also deposed that he has checked the meter seals before he tested the meter and it is correct that on 17.05.2013 all the meter seals were intact before he tested the meter and at that point of time there was no any abnormality found with the meter.