Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. At the time of inspection, total connected load was found to be 1.810 KW which was being used for domestic purposes. Videographer Sh. Rajeev captured videography of inspection proceeding. Inspection documents i.e. Inspection Report, Load Report, Seizure Memo and advisory notice were prepared at the spot.

5. On the basis of connected load, applicable tariff and following the guidelines of DERC, the complainant company assessed the demand to the tune of Rs.56,476/-

11. PW3 Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma is the Manager/complainant who was heading the inspection team. He proved the CD of videography of the inspection proceedings as Ex.PW3/A, inspection report as Ex.PW3/B, load report as Ex.PW3/C, advisory notice as Ex.PW3/D and theft bill as Ex.PW3/E. He also proved the complaint as Ex.PW3/F lodged by him.

15. On the other hand, Ld. LAC for accused submitted that accused is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. It was also submitted that accused has not committed any theft of electricity as alleged by the prosecution.

Analysis

16. At the outset, it is observed that the Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the videography proceedings is on record but the same has not been exhibited. Ld. Substitute Addl. PP and AR of the complainant company submit that the videographer left the services of the concerned Photo Studio and hence could not be produced and enter the witness box. Videography has been thus proved by PW3. Be that as it may, the absence of the Section 65B Certificate cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution as there was no objection raised by the Ld. LAC/defence counsel for the accused at the time the videography was being exhibited. The court, in relation to the said legal position, is supported by the judgement reported as Sonu @ Amar vs State of Haryana, AIR 2017 SC 3441 wherein it is held:

17.Taking into account the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the videography stands proved even when the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has not Digitally been exhibited.

signed by Ashish Ashish Rastogi

18. Before dealing with the factual aspects of the present case, Rastogi Date:

2025.03.18 15:45:12 +0530 it is deemed appropriate to firstly specify and discuss the Judgment 8 of 22 SC No.320/2022 State Vs. Jubeda relevant provisions of the Act which are required to be gone into for appropriate disposal of the case. The present case pertains to Sections 135 & 138 of the Act. The provision of Section 135 & 138 of the Electricity Act is reproduced as under:-