Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The signatures of Raj Kumar (lineman) and Dinesh Singh (Electrician) were not taken on inspection reports except seizure memo. No public person was made as a witness. No complaint was made to the police for initiating legal proceedings against the accused and for proper investigation in the case. The documents of ownership/ occupancy were not procured by the team. 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 evidence on record which connect the theft of electricity with the accused. The company failed to prove the occupation of accused in the inspected premise.

In the inspection report (Ex.CW-2/B) in column no.2.2 name of the user is Jaswant Kumar ("as stated"), however, the person who were present at spot and disclosed the name of accused was not named or examined in the court. As per complaint, the accused refused to sign the inspection reports, however, the said fact was not reported to the local police.

9. 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 in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the documents of occupancy / ownership.