[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Krishna Gupta vs The State on 16 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 13.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on:16.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 627/2016 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1328/2016
KRISHNA GUPTA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Baliyan and Ms.
Shivanshi Panwar, Advocates
versus
THE STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI
Parveen
Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Shagun Ruhil,
Mr. Shreenivash, Mr. Karan Chopra,
and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocates
for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 read with Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C), the sole
accused in SC No. 176/2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions
Judge, Special Electricity Court, North-West District, Rohini,
Delhi, assails the judgment dated 02.04.2016 as per which he has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act).
2. The prosecution case is that, on 29.01.2015 at about
12:10 PM, a joint inspection team of the complainant Company,
namely, NDPL/TPDDL comprising of PW3 Senior Manager, PW4
Photographer, PW5 Assistant Officer, inspected the premises of
the accused, situated near Samrat Cinema, Shakurpur, near MCD
Parking, Delhi and found that the accused was indulging in direct
theft of electricity by illegally tapping from the LT network of
TPDDL. At the time of inspection, a connected load of 10.200 KW
was found being used for commercial purposes, thereby causing
wrongful gain to the accused and wrongful loss to the complainant
Company, thus committing an offence punishable under aforesaid
Section.
2.1. As it was a case of direct theft of electricity, a theft bill
was raised to the tune of ₹9,23,395/- against the accused, which
was served on him. Later, Ext. PW2/A Complaint was filed
alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 135
of the Act.
3. Based on Ext. PW2/A Complaint, Crime
No.271/2015Saraswati Vihar Police Station, that is, Ext. PW1/A
FIR, was registered by PW1, Head Constable (HC). PW8,
Investigating Officer conducted investigation into the crime and on
completion of the same, the chargesheet/final report was submitted
on 11.12.2015 before the trial court, alleging the commission of
the offence punishable under the aforementioned Section.
4. When the accused was produced before the trial court,
all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides,
the trial court as per order dated 14.12.2015 framed a Charge for
the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act, which was
read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not
guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 8 were
examined and Ext. PW1/A-C, Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW3/A-C, Ext.
PW3/DA, Ext. PW4/A-1toA-42, Ext. PW4/B, Ext. PW6/A-B, Ext.
PW7/A, Ext. PW8/A were marked in support of the case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with respect to the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. The accused submitted that he had been
falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that
three commercial electricity meters were installed in his name and
that he was using electricity properly through the said authorised
connections, and that no direct theft of electricity had been
committed by him. It was also submitted that the officials of
TPDDL had illegally demanded a sum of ₹5,000/- from him, and
upon his refusal of the said demand, he has been falsely implicated
in the present case.
7. The accused examined himself as DW1. Ext. DW1/1 -
1/3 were marked.
8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court,
vide the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2016 held the accused
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act and
hence sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of six months and to pay fine of ₹5000/-, and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three days. He has
also been directed to pay an amount of ₹9,23,395/-, towards civil
liability. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred this appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused
submitted that the accused was merely a rickshaw battery puller
and not the owner of any shop, and that he neither owns nor is in
possession of the premises or the parking area where the electricity
meter in question was installed. It was contended that the alleged
theft of electricity, if any, related to a meter situated in an open
parking area, which was being used by several shopkeepers, yet
neither such users nor the actual owner of the premises was made
an accused. It was further submitted that the inspection conducted
by the team suffers from material lapses, inasmuch as the entire
length of the alleged illegal wires had not been seized on the
ground that the same were too long and inaccessible. Additionally,
it was pointed out that although three electricity meters were
present at the site, only one meter was removed during the
inspection, thereby casting serious doubt on the prosecution case.
10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the Statecontended that the impugned
judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting
interference by this Court, as the trial court has duly considered
each and every ground raised in the present appeal. It was further
submitted that the prosecution has duly established its case that the
accused had dishonestly abstracted electricity.
11. Heard both sides and perused the records.
12. The only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed
against the appellant/accused by the trial court is sustainable or
not.
13. I shall briefly refer to the evidence relied on by the
prosecution in support of the case. The inspection/raid in this case
is alleged to have taken place on 29.01.2015 at 12:10 PM.
14. PW3, Senior Manager of the complainant Company,
when examined before the trial court, deposed that on 29.01.2015,
he along with PW4, PW5 and one Shyam Singh visited the spot,
namely, Samrat Cinema, Shakurpur, near MCD Parking, Delhi,
where they found the accused indulging in direct theft of electricity
from the TPDDL LT Network, which was further connected to the
internal wiring of Tehbazari shops and battery rickshaw charging
circuit. The electricity was being used for commercial purposes
and the total connected load was found to be 10.200 KW. He
further deposed thatA-1 to A-42 photographs of the spot were
taken by PW5 photographer. During the inspection, one single
phase meter along with a blue coloured service line wire of
approximately 5 meters and PVC black coloured aluminium wire
of about 82 meters were seized vide Ext. PW3/A seizure memo.
Ext. PW3/B inspection report was prepared at the spot. Thereafter,
the raiding team returned to the office and deposited the relevant
documents along with the case property in the Zonal Office. PW3
identified the case property produced in Court, namely, one single
phase meter along with blue colour service line cable marked as
Ext. P1 (colly) and black coloured PVC wire of about 82 meters
marked as Ex. P2 (colly), stating that the same were seized from
the spot.
14.1. PW3, in his cross examination, admitted that the case
property Ext. P2 (colly) are easily available in the open market and
that the premises was situated in a Tehbazari market area and no
public person had been called to join the inspection proceedings
despite their presence at the spot. PW3 further deposed that the
meter had not been tampered with, however, there was direct theft
of electricity. They were unable to remove entire illegal wires.
PW3 initially deposed that he could not recollect the name of the
consumer in whose name Ex. P1 meter had been sanctioned at that
time, but later deposed that it was sanctioned in the name of the
accused. PW3 denied the suggestion that the case property had
been planted or that the inspection was not conducted at the spot.
15. PW4, photographer deposed that on 29.01.2015, he
along with PW3, PW5 and Shyam Singh visited the spot at Samrat
Cinema, Shakurpur, near MCD Parking, Delhi and on the
instructions of the members of the raiding team, he took forty two
photographs of the spot using his digital camera. After developing
the same, he handed over the photographs, which are Exts.
PW4/A-1 to PW4/A-42. PW4 produced the CD containing the said
photographs, which is exhibited as Ext. PW4/B. In his cross
examination, PW4 deposed that they reached the spot at about
11:45 AM. PW4 denied the suggestion that he had not
accompanied the raiding team or that he had not taken the
photographs at the spot.
16. PW5, Assistant officer, a member of the inspection
team, when examined, fully supported the version of PW3. PW5,
in his cross examination, deposed that the height of the TPDDL
pole, from which direct theft of electricity was being committed,
was approximately 9 meters and that the entire illegal wiring could
not be seized as it was not accessible and was a dead wire. He
further deposed that the stolen electricity was being used in
multiple Tehbazari shops situated within an area of about 150
square meters, though he could not specify the exact number of
such shops. PW5 also deposed that there were three electricity
meters at the spot, out of which only one meter was removed and
seized during the inspection.
17. PW2, HOG (CEG - Enforcement), TPDDL, deposed
that on 05.02.2015, he filed Ext. PW2/A Complaint before the
SHO, PS Subhash Place for registration of FIR under Section 135
of the Act against accused, on the basis of inspection conducted on
29.01.2015, wherein the accused was found indulging in direct
theft of electricity. Along with Ext. PW2/A Complaint, he
submitted Ext. PW3/B inspection report, Ext. PW3/A seizure
memo, Ext. PW4/A-1 - A-42 forty-two photographs and PW4/B
CD. In his cross examination, PW2 admitted that he had no
personal knowledge of the theft of electricity and that he had not
visited the spot at the time of inspection and that Ext. PW2/A
Complaint was filed on the basis of documents placed before him
by the members of the raiding team. He denied the suggestion that
the inspection report and seizure memo were prepared in the
office.
18. The accused examined himself as DW1 and deposed
that two electricity meters bearing CA No. 60018588834 and
60018910954 had been installed in his name at Samrat Cinema,
Shakurpur, Delhi for commercial purposes and that he was
regularly paying the electricity bills. He produced photocopies of
electricity bills dated 25.01.2015, 19.12.2014, 15.01.2016,
17.01.2015 and 03.10.2015, marked as Ext. DW1/1 (colly), and
also produced certain photographs marked as Ext. DW1/2 (colly).
He further deposed that he never indulged in theft of electricity
and that a false case had been registered against him as he refused
to pay illegal gratification to the officials of TPDDL. In his cross
examination, DW1 admitted that he was unable to produce receipts
showing payment of Ext. DW1/1 bills. He denied the suggestion
that DW1/2 (colly) photographs did not pertain to the spot or were
taken from elsewhere. He further denied that he had concocted a
false story to save himself from punishment or that he was found
indulging in theft of electricity on the day of inspection.
19. CW1, Assistant Manager, EAC (Finance and
Accounts), deposed that on the basis of the inspection conducted
on 29.01.2015, he raised a direct theft bill dated 03.02.2015 for an
amount of ₹9,23,395/- against the accused. CW1 further deposed
that the bill was prepared as per the LDHF formula prescribed
under the Act and DERC Regulations. The total units assessed
were 33,660 for a period of twelve months preceding the date of
inspection, i.e., from 30.01.2014 to 29.01.2015.
20. As per Section 135(1)(a) of the Act, if any person
dishonestly taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with
overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service
wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may
be, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity, is liable to be
punished.
21. As per the prosecution case, the inspection team of the
complainant Company, namely TPDDL, comprising PW3, PW4,
the photographer, PW5 and one Shyam Singh, found the accused
indulging in theft of electricity by illegally tapping from the LT
network of TPDDL and using the same for commercial purposes
by supplying electricity to the internal wiring of Tehbazari shops
and for charging battery rickshaws. A total connected load of
10.200 KW was found in use for the said commercial activities.
Further, during the inspection, one single phase meter along with a
blue coloured service line wire measuring approximately 5 metres
and an illegal PVC black coloured aluminium wire measuring
about 82 metres, found to have been used for illicit tapping, were
seized vide Ext. PW3/A seizure memo. An inspection report, Ext.
PW3/B, was also prepared at the spot, and approximately 42
photographs depicting the site, the electrical cables and the
presence of the accused were taken during the course of
inspection. Subsequently, Ext. CW1/A theft bill was raised to the
tune of ₹ 9,23,395/- against the accused.
22. The factum of the alleged offence of electricity theft by
the accused, as detected by the inspection team of the complainant
Company TPDDL, stands duly proved through the testimony of
PW3, the Senior Manager, and PW5, the Assistant Officer, both of
whom were members of the inspection team. PW3 and PW5 have
also correctly identified the articles seized during the inspection,
which were allegedly used by the accused for illicit tapping from
the TPDDL network. Moreover, Ext. PW4/A to Ext. PW4/42, the
photographs taken during the inspection depict the scene of
inspection and the manner in which the alleged illegal tapping was
carried out. The said photographs have been duly proved by PW4,
the photographer, who accompanied the inspection team.
Therefore, the prosecution case that the accused was indulging in
theft of electricity by illegally tapping from the TPDDL line stands
established on the basis of cogent, consistent and reliable evidence
on record.
23. Further, a bare reading of the third proviso to Section
135 of the Act makes it evident that once abstraction or theft of
electricity is proved, a presumption arises against the consumer
that he has indulged in theft. Though such presumption is
rebuttable, the onus lies upon the accused to establish that no theft
of electricity was being committed at the premises. It was the
contention of the accused that he was merely a battery rickshaw
puller and not the owner or occupier of the premises. It does not
weaken the prosecution case inasmuch as PW3 and PW4 have
consistently deposed that the inspection team found him in direct
theft of electricity from the TPDDL LT network, which was used
for other commercial purposes, and the accused was also found
present and correctly identified at the spot. PW3 further deposed in
cross examination that the meter was sanctioned in the name of the
accused. DW1/ Accused also admitted that two electricity meters
bearing CA No. 60018588834 and 60018910954 were installed in
his name at Samrat Cinema for commercial purposes. Thus, the
evidence clearly connects the accused with the premises and the
electricity supply, and the mere plea that the area was an open
parking space or was used by several shopkeepers does not
displace the direct evidence of theft from the meter and connected
line. It is true that Ext. DW1/1, comprising electricity bills dated
25.01.2015, 19.12.2014, 15.01.2016, 17.01.2015 and 03.10.2015,
were produced to show that the accused had obtained two
commercial electricity connections from the complainant company
prior to the inspection. However, this contention does not advance
the case of the defence, as the evidence on record clearly
establishes that the electricity was not being drawn through the
said authorised meters, but was instead being illegally tapped from
the TPDDL LV line. The presence of a recharging circuit at the
site, used for charging e-rickshaws through such illicit supply,
further substantiates the prosecution case that the accused was
indulging in theft of electricity despite having authorised
connections.
24. The further contention that the inspection was defective
because the entire illegal wire was not seized and only one of three
meters was removed is also without merit. PW5deposed that the
complete illegal wires were not seized because they were not
accessible and were dead wires, and that the height of the TPDDL
pole was about 9 metres. PW5 also clarified that the stolen
electricity was being used in the tehbazari shops and that only one
meter was removed at the spot. In a case of direct theft, the
prosecution is not required to seize each and every wire or all
existing meters if the inspection team has otherwise proved the
source of theft, the connected load, the photographs, the seizure
memo, and the inspection report. Also, the case on hand is dealt
with an offence of illegal tapping from the complainant Company
LT network and not of tampering the electrical meter to do illegal
consumption. Also, the allegation that officials of the complainant
Company demanded illegal gratification of ₹5,000/- does not
inspire confidence, as it is neither supported by any plausible
reason for such demand nor substantiated by any cogent evidence
on record. Therefore, no material evidence has been brought on
record to show that the accused was not illegally tapping from the
TPDDL line or that he was not the person dishonestly abstracting
electricity for purposes such as supplying it to nearby shops or for
charging battery rickshaws. Nothing was also brought out to
discredit the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and, therefore,
I find no reason(s) to disbelieve their version.
25. That being the position, I find no infirmity in the
findings of the trial court warranting an interference by this Court.
26. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
27. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 16, 2026
rs
