Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)J.K. Steelomelt (P) Ltd. vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 24 April, 2007
(20) In the light of this evidence the reliance placed by the
Ld counsel for the complainant on the consumption pattern
analysis Ex. CW1/5 alone is not sufficient to establish the case of
dishonest abstraction of energy against the accused in the absence
of other evidence to establish that consumer was involved in
dishonest abstraction of energy. Reliance can safely be placed
upon the judgments in J.K. Steelomelt (P) Ltd Vs BSES Rajdhani
Power Ltd and Jagdish Narayan VS North Delhi Power Ltd & Anr
referred Supra.
Section 135 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 44 in The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Jagarnath Singh vs B. S. Ramaswamy on 22 September, 1965
26...........It is one thing to plead that the connected
load is more than the sanctioned load but is
another to say that in fact the connected load has
been used throughout by the petitioner. This could
be only verified by the actual consumption
recorded in the meter. If, as is indicated in the
inspection report, the meter wiring is OK and the
disc is moving in the right direction then the
actual units recorded will reflect how much of the
connected load is in fact being used. Therefore,
merely because the connected load is more than
the sanctioned load, cannot lead to an automatic
presumption that the entire connected load is being
used by the consumer throughout the period."
ii. In Jagdish Narayan VS North Delhi Power Ltd & Anr ,
140 (2007) DLT 307 wherein it was held that :
"24. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jagannath Singh Vs B.S. Ramaswamy, [ 1966] 1
SCR 885 in illustrative although there the Court
was concerned with a criminal conviction for the
offence of theft of electricity under Section 39 and
44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The
approach to the requirement of proof of dishonest
abstraction of energy is nevertheless relevant for
the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the existence of artificial means for
abstracting energy can only give rise to a
presumption that there had been a dishonest
abstraction. The supplier would still have to show
that the consumer is responsible for such
tampering. In this case, it was contended that the
existence of an open studhole on the meter was
CC no. 134/08 (NDPL VS Jagmohan) Page no..........9/15
sufficient proof that dishonest abstraction of
energy had been taken place. In answer to that
contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
under:
"A meter with an exposed studhole, without more, is
not a perfected instrument for unauthorized taking
of energy, and cannot be regarded as an artificial
means of its abstraction. To make it such an artificial
means, the tampering must go further, and the meter
must be converted into an instrument for recording
less than the units actually passing through it. A
Check meter affords an easy method of proving that
the consumer's meter is recording less than the units
consumed and is being used as an artificial means
for abstraction of the unrecorded energy. To bring
home the charge under Section 39, the prosecution
must also prove that the consumer is responsible for
the tampering. The evidence adduced by the
prosecution must establish beyond doubt that the
consumer is guilty of dishonest abstraction of
energy."