Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Jarnail Singh vs State Of Haryana on 1 July, 2013
11. As per Regulation 52 (Vii) of Delhi Electricity
Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations 2007 "in case
of direct theft of electricity licensee shall file the complaint within 2
days in the designated Special Court. The complaint in the present
case was filed on 13.05.2008 after 5 months of inspection. Prompt
CC No: 302/08
Police Station: Pahar Ganj
BYPL Vs. Ram Raj Page 10/14
and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid
details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. Undoubtedly,
delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant case
improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, delay in
lodging the complaint is always fatal to prosecution case (Jarnail
Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1993 Crl.LJ 1656 SC).
State Bank Of Travancore vs M/S Kingston Computers(I) P.Ltd on 22 February, 2011
14. The present complaint was filed by Sh.C.B.
Sharma stated to be authorized representative of company but later
on, other authorized representative were substituted to pursue this
complaint. The minutes of the board authorizing Sh. Arun Kanchan
C.E.O of the company to authorize any of the officer of the company
to file or represent the complaint were not proved by the company.
As per recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State
Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers (I) P.Ltd. III (2011) SLT
53, the letter of authority issued by the C.E.O of the company, was
nothing but a scrap of paper. Such an authority is not recognized
under law, as such complaint was not instituted by an authorized
person. Most importantly, Sh.C.B.Sharma, officer of the company,
who had filed this complaint and mentioned in the list of witnesses
was not examined in the court either, so the complaint Ex. CW1/A
remains unproved on record.
Manoj Kumar vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd & Anr on 14 May, 2013
16. In the present case, the testimony of
witnesses have material contradictions. It is relevant to note that all
the witness failed to prove that accused was the user as well as
registered consumer of the electricity at the time of inspection. A
combined reading of the statements of the witnesses along with their
cross examination failed to show that any documentary proof was
obtained by the raiding team to prove that he was in the occupation of
the inspected premises at the time of inspection. Thus, the
complainant failed to discharge the initial burden of proof under the
proviso to Section 135 (1) of the Act that person / accused charged
was the consumer. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
CRL.A. 438/2012 & Crl. M. B. 754/2012 titled as Manoj Kumar Vs.
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. dated 14.05.2013 is relied on this aspect.
More over, the non adherence to the statutory regulations by the
members of the inspecting team while booking a case of theft as
already discussed creates serious doubt on the inspection report
itself.
Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 52 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 135 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Ruggan on 22 March, 2012
10. The company was under obligation to prove
as to who was in the actual possession of the inspected premises at
the time of inspection. The company failed to prove that it was
accused Ram Raj was the user as well as registered consumer of the
premises. So, as per recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court in
Crl.A.No. 816/2010 decided on 22.03.2012 titled as BSES Rajdhani
Power Ltd Vs. Ruggan, the accused did not fall within the ambit of
"WHOEVER" as enumerated U/S 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and
in this case also judgment of trial court was affirmed acquitting the
accused on the aforesaid count.