Suresh Kumar vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3531 Del

$-51
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     DECIDED ON : 8th AUGUST, 2013

+             CRL.A. 1339/2012 & CRL.M.B. 2064/2012

       SURESH KUMAR                                       ..... Appellant
                         Through :    Mr.Ranvir Vats, Advocate.

                         versus

       BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR.          ..... Respondents

Through : Mr.Neeraj Grover, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. Suresh Kumar (the appellant) challenges a judgment dated

18.10.2012 in Complaint Case No.221/10/08 under Section 135

Electricity Act, 2003 by which he was convicted for committing the

offence under Section 135 of the Act. The civil liability was assessed to `

9,73,679/-. By an order dated 25.10.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI

for six months with fine ` 14,60,518/- and in default of payment of fine to

undergo SI for three months.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 03.03.2008 at

01.30 P.M. a joint inspection team inspected the premises i.e. Khasra

No.5, Village Kamruddin Nagar, New Delhi. One single phase electronic

meter bearing No. 22009058 against K No. 2631J4530645 was found

installed in the name of respondent No.4 Jagdish. Suresh Kumar (present

appellant), Chander Bhan (since PO) and Sardar ji (since PO) were user of

the said premises. They were not using the electricity through meter and

had indulged in direct theft of electricity by tapping service lines before

the meter with the help of wires. The connected load of 32.05 KW and

8.645 KW was found running for industrial and non-domestic purpose

whereas the sanctioned load was for 1 KW for domestic purpose. 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 his 313

statement, the appellant admitted that he was owner of the premises but

had let out to two Chander Bahan and Santokh Singh. The meter was

installed in the name of Jagdish. 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, the counsel for the parties

stated at Bar that the matter has been settled / compounded between the

parties before Lok Adalat and the appellant has deposited the entire dues

with the respondent / BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Office note is on record

whereby it is mentioned that the matter was settled in Continuous Lok

Adalat on 29.01.2013.

4. Since the matter has been finally settled/compounded before

the Continuous Lok Adalat, the respondent / 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.

5. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the

respondent / 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.

6. The appeal stands disposed of. Pending bail application also

stands disposed of being infructuous. Trial Court record be sent back

forthwith with the copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

AUGUST 08, 2013/tr