Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd vs Sunheri & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4311 Del

$~23
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CRL. L.P. 414/2010
                                         Decided on 20th July, 2012

       BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.            ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Deepak Pathak, Adv.
                versus

       SUNHERI & ANR.                               ..... Defendant
                    Through:             Mr. M.L. Sharma, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

A.K.PATHAK, J. (ORAL)

1. By this petition petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the

judgment dated 22nd July, 2010 whereby respondents have been acquitted

of the charge under Section 135 read with Section 150 of the Electricity

Act, 2003 ("the Act", for short).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint

under Section 151 read with Section 154 of the Act alleging therein that a

raiding party comprising of Mani Bhushan Saroj, Assistant Manager,

Rafi Mohd., Electrician and Dharam Pal, Recovery Assistant, raided

shop no. A-54, G/F Subzi Mandi, Madangir Mkt., New Delhi - 110062

of the respondents on 9th July, 2007 at about 02:18 pm when it was

noticed that the direct theft of electricity was being committed with the

help of a wire by passing the disconnected meter. Joint Inspection

Report was prepared at the spot. Respondent no. 2 was registered

consumer; whereas respondent no.1 was the user since she was found in

the shop at the time of inspection. Total connected load was found to be

3.710 kw. Load report was also prepared. Meter was seized vide a

seizure memo. Photographs of the spot were taken. A compact disk was

also prepared. It was alleged that respondents were guilty of committing

an offence under Section 135 of the Act. It was further prayed that the

civil liability to the tune of `1,32,331/- be also determined against the

respondents.

3. Mani Bhushan Saroj was examined as PW1; whereas Binay

Kumar, Legal Officer was examined as PW2. No other witness was

examined by the petitioner. As regards respondents, four witnesses were

examined which included respondent no. 2. After meticulous

examination of record, trial court has concluded that the petitioner had

failed to prove involvement of respondents in the offence of direct theft

of electricity. It has been further observed that the petitioner had failed

to prove the inspection report which was relevant for proving the theft.

Respondent no. 2 was not even present at the spot. Petitioner had also

failed to prove that the respondent no.2 had abated the theft of electricity.

Seized articles were not produced in court. Respondents had succeeded

in establishing that the shop was under renovation, inasmuch as, walls

had been plastered and water was sprinkled and the area was wet, thus,

use of electricity was suspicious.

4. I have perused the Judgment and trial court record and do not find

any perversity in the view taken by the court below. Inspection report has

not been proved by the PW1. He has only proved the seizure memo

prepared by Hemant Ex.CW2/C. Besides this he has proved the

photographs, CD and theft bill as Ex. CW2/C to Ex.CW2/E. As regards

CD, he has admitted in his cross-examination that the same was not

prepared at the time of inspection nor was shown to the respondents after

its preparation. If CD was not prepared at the time of inspection then no

reliance can be placed thereon. As regards photographs, the same also

remain unproved as photographer had not been produced so as to depose

that he had taken the photographs and had prepared the positives. That

apart, seized meter or for that matter wire through which direct theft was

committed was not produced in Court. Alleged welding machine was

also not taken in possession or produced in the court.

5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any justifiable reason to

grant leave to petitioner to appeal.

6. Petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

JULY 20, 2012 ga