Delhi High Court
Pushpa Sharma vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 8 August, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
$-50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 8th AUGUST, 2013
+ CRL.A. 163/2012 & CRL.M.B. 271/2012
PUSHPA SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
Ms.Anjali Sharma, Adv. For R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. Pushpa Sharma (the appellant) challenges the correctness of
judgment dated 19.07.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in
Complaint Case No. 1029/2006 PS Mehrauli under Section 135 Electricity
Act, 2003 by which she was convicted for committing the offence under
Section 135 of the Act. By an order dated 10.01.2012, she was sentenced
to undergo RI for six months. Civil liability of ` 1,18,175/- was assessed.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 11.03.2006 at
about 01.10 P.M. premises bearing No. 177 EA, Ward No. 2, Shop No.
51, Mehrauli, New Delhi were inspected and it was found that one single
phase electronic meter was installed and it was lying in idle condition.
The appellant was user of the said premises and the said meter was in her
name. She was not using the electricity through the said meter but was
illegally using it by tapping the bus bar with the aid of copper wire. The
team found that total connected load was 10.75 KW. The necessary
proceedings were conducted and the complaint case was filed. The
appellant was summoned for the offence under Section 135 of the
Electricity Act, 2003. The respondent examined four witnesses. In her 313
statement, she pleaded false implication. She examined three witnesses in
defence. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival
contentions of the parties, the Trial court, by the impugned judgment,
convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned previously.
3. During the course arguments to settle the dispute, the
appellant expressed her willingness to deposit 1/3 of the total civil liability
on 20.05.2013. Counsel for respondent No.2 / BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
sought time to get instructions from the department/ respondent No.2 /
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Today, counsel for the respondent No.2 /
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. has stated that taking into consideration the
peculiar facts and circumstances and the pathetic condition of the
appellant, the department respondent No.2 / BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
has agreed to settle the dispute with the appellant on her payment of 1/3
of the civil liability assessed by the Trial Court and on deposit of that
amount, the department/ respondent No.2 / BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
has no objection to dispose of the appeal as settled/ compounded.
4. The appellant and her counsel state at Bar that they shall
deposit 1/3 of the civil liability within one month with the respondent
No.2 / BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Accordingly, the appellant is directed
to deposit 1/3 of the civil liability within one month with the respondent
No.2 / BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
5. Since the matter has been finally settled/compounded, the
offence and the appeal stand compounded. The respondent No.2 / BSES
Rajdhani Power Ltd. does not oppose the appeal and has no objection if it
is accepted and the matter is disposed of as compounded.
6. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 / BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., the appeal is accepted in
terms of the settlement. Since the offence stands compounded the
appellant is acquitted of the charge.
7. It is however made clear that if the appellant fails to deposit
the amount as directed within one month, the respondent No.2 / BSES
Rajdhani Power Ltd./ department will be at liberty to get the appeal
revived.
8. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending
bail application also stands disposed of being infructuous.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 08, 2013/tr
