Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

No public person was made as a witness. He had not made any complaint to the police for initiating legal proceedings against the accused / representative of accused when he refused to sign the reports. The documents of ownership / occupancy were not procured by the team. No inquiry on the aspect of occupancy of the premises was made. 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 with the accused. The company failed to prove the occupation of accused in the inspected premise. It was contended that company had failed to prove its case so, accused is entitled to be acquitted in this case.

In the inspection report (Ex.CW-2/A) in column no.2.2 name of the user is Naresh Kumar ("as stated"), however, it was not specified as to who disclosed the name of accused. As per compliant, the accused was present at spot, however PW-2 deposed that the representative of the accused was present at the spot. The name of representative of the accused was also not disclosed.

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 Page 6 BYPL Vs. Naresh Kumar Crl. L.P.No. 598/2013 decided on 21.01.2014 titled as BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs. Guddu wherein, the order of trial court was confirmed in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the documents of occupancy / ownership.