[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Munna vs The State & Anr on 26 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 23.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 26.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 49/2018 & CRL.M.A. 890/2018
MUNNA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashu Sharma, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Vikram Singh, P.S. Welcome.
Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advocate for
Respondent no. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C), the sole accused in SC
No. 14/17 (Old No.1643/16) on the file of the Additional
Sessions Judge, Special Electricity Court, Karkardooma Courts,
New Delhi, assails the judgment dated 29.11.2017 as per which
the accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act).
2. The prosecution case is that, on 21.12.2006 at about
05:05 AM, an inspection was conducted by a team of officials
of the Complainant Company led by R.P. Aggarwal (PW3) -
Assistant Manager at premises No. L-21, Janata Mazdoor
Colony, Welcome, Delhi. During the said inspection, the
accused was found indulging in direct theft of electricity by
illegally and dishonestly abstracting electricity from the BSES
YPL LT MP boxes and was further supplying it to 229 dwelling
units, from whom the accused was collecting money. The
connected load was found to be 552.564 KW/DX/DT for
domestic use.
2.1. As it was a case of direct theft of electricity, a theft bill
was raised to the tune of ₹ 94,28,504/- against the accused,
which was served on him. Later, Ext. PW1/A Complaint was
filed alleging commission of the offences punishable under
Section 135 of the Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (the IPC).
3. Based on Ext. PW1/A Complaint, Crime No.711/2007
Welcome Police Station, that is, Exhibit PW7/B FIR, was
registered by PW8, Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI). PW6,
Investigating Officer conducted investigation into the crime and
on completion of the same, the chargesheet/final report dated
14.12.2007 was submitted before the trial court, alleging the
commission of the offences punishable under the
aforementioned Sections.
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 15.12.2008, is seen to
have 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 Exts.PW1/A, PW2/A, PW3/A to PW3/D, PW3/E
to PW3/H, PW5/A, PW6/A, PW6/C, PW6/D, PW7/A, PW7/B,
PW8/A, PW8/B, PW8/C, and PW8/DA 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
by one ASI Surinder Pandey in connivance with other police
officials of Welcome Police Station as one of his friends,
namely, Abid, had earlier got those police officials arrested by
the CBI and on account of the said incident, they were in
inimical terms with him and so has falsely implicated him in the
present case. The accused further submitted that he and his
family members had also been implicated in another case under
Section 307 IPC, in which case he was acquitted.
7. DW1 was examined on behalf of the accused. No
documentary evidence was produced by the accused.
8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court,
vide the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2017 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 two years and to pay fine of ₹1,10,55,405/-, and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months. He has also been directed to pay an amount of
₹73,70,270/-, towards civil liability. Aggrieved, the accused has
preferred this appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused
submitted that the prosecution failed to examine any of the
persons to whom the accused was alleged to have supplied
electricity. The prosecution has also failed to establish that the
accused was the owner or in lawful possession of the premises
where the inspection or raid was conducted. It was further
submitted that Ext. PW1/A complaint dated 09.10.2007 was
lodged nearly ten months after the inspection or raid conducted
by the respondent, that is, on 21.12.2006, and such inordinate
delay casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.
10. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent contended 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 established its case that the accused had
dishonestly abstracted electricity. Therefore, the onus shifted to
the accused as contemplated under the third proviso to Section
135 of the Act. However, the accused has not discharged the
onus. Hence, there is no infirmity calling for an interference by
this Court.
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 21.12.2006 at 5.05 PM.
14. PW3, Assistant Manager / Inspection team leader,
deposed that, on 21.12.2006 he was posted in the Enforcement
Department of BSES YPL at Karkardooma. On the said day at
about 5.05 a.m., he along with a team of officers, namely,
Deepak Kataria, Saurabh Kumar Sharma, Veerpal (PW2) and
photographer Arunat conducted an inspection in Janta Mazdoor
Colony, Welcome. During the inspection, it was found that
accused was indulging in direct theft of electricity by tapping
supply from BSES LT MP boxes and supplying electricity to
the residents of Janta Mazdoor Colony without the permission
of BSES. On inquiry from the neighbours, it was revealed that
the accused was supplying electricity in the colony and
collecting money from consumers. The consumers receiving
such supply were called to the spot and the area from where
electricity was directly supplied was video graphed. The entire
connected load of various houses was measured and the illegal
wires connected to the mains were removed. Thereafter, PW4,
their Manager was called to the spot, who seized the illegal
wires removed by the team. Ex. PW 2/A seizure memo was
prepared by Deepak Kataria under the supervision of PW4.
PW3 deposed that he prepared Ex. PW/3 A to PW 3/D load
report, Ex. 3/E to PW 3/G inspection report, and the Ex. PW
3/H meter detail inspection report at the spot. Though the
neighbours were requested to join the inspection as witnesses,
they refused. PW3 identified the CD containing the videography
of the inspected premises dated 21.12.2006. At this juncture, the
prosecutor sought the permission of the trial court to put leading
questions to PW3 regarding the seizure of the case property.
The request was allowed by the trial court. To a leading
question as to who were the persons who had refused to sign
Ext. PW2/A seizure memo, PW3 answered that the persons
present at the time of inspection who had witnessed the
inspection, had been requested to sign Ext. PW2/A seizure
memo. However, they refused to do so and hence he made the
endorsement - "refused to sign". PW3 further deposed that the
said persons refused to disclose their names and addresses.
15. PW3 in his cross examination deposed that they had
reached the inspected area before 5.00 a.m. and that no police
official had accompanied the inspection team. There were 7 to 8
CISF personnel along with the inspection team. The area was
inspected on the basis of information regarding theft of
electricity received by their manager. PW3 deposed that
electricity was being stolen through a wire and was being
distributed to the entire gali without any meter and that
electricity was being supplied to 229 dwelling units. PW3 had
asked the occupier of the said dwelling units, however, they
refused to disclose their identity and name. PW3 admitted that
at the time of inspection, the accused was not present at the site.
But the users of the dwelling units informed him that the illegal
wires belonged to the accused.
16. PW4, Manager, Enforcement deposed that on that day,
while on duty, he received a phone call at about 4.30 a.m. from
PW3who informed him that a raid had been conducted at Janta
Mazdoor Colony, Welcome, Delhi, where theft of electricity
had been detected and that his presence was required at the site
for seizure of the material used in the commission of theft and
upon receiving the said information, he immediately proceeded
to the spot. The materials used in the commission of theft,
namely 7 pieces of illegal single core aluminium rod wires of
different lengths measuring 9 meters, 12 meters in two pieces,
10 meters, 5 meters, 6 meters and 7 meters, which had been
removed from the pole, were seized. PW4 further deposed that
the case property was kept in a plastic katta and sealed. PW4
deposed that Ex. PW 2/Aseizure memo was prepared by a team
member under his direction and supervision.
16.1. In his cross examination, PW4 deposed that he cannot
say whether the person in whose premises the raid was
conducted was a resident of L-21. According to him, it was for
the inspection to ascertain the said fact. PW2 deposed that
members of the public were present at the time when Ex. PW
2/A seizure memo was prepared. Though he had asked them to
sign the seizure memo, they refused.
17. PW2, Lineman, a member of the inspection team
supports the version of PW3.
18. PW8, Sub Inspector/ the investigating officer deposed
that on 13.12.2007, PW3 produced a sealed plastic bag with the
seal of BYPL Manager Enforcement containing the case
property of the present case. He seized the same vide Ex.
PW8/B seizure memo. PW8 further deposed that accused, also
known as Bijliwala, who was wanted in the present case, was
arrested by PW6. PW8 identified the accused present in Court.
He also identified Ext. PW8/C CD and the video clipping
contained in the same.
18.1. PW8 deposed that address of accused is - L-382, Janta
Majdoor Colony. This was the address of the accused at the time
of his arrest which has been mentioned in Ext.PW6/A arrest
memo. PW8 further deposed that before that the accused is
stated to have resided at L-21, Janta Majdoor Colony. PW8
could not say whether the accused had been residing at L-382
since the year 2000. According to him, the accused might be
having both the aforementioned houses.
19. PW1, Manager Enforcement, BYPL, Shakti Kiran
Building, who gave Ext. PW1/A complaint in his cross-
examination, deposed that the complaint was lodged after about
10 months from the date of inspection as there is a departmental
procedure for raising the theft bill, issuing notice to the
consumer for payment and granting opportunity to him pay the
theft bill. PW1 denied that the FIR had been lodged at the
behest of Sh. S. B. Yadav, SHO, Welcome Police Station. PW1
deposed that he was unaware of any dispute existing between
the accused and the said SHO prior to registration of the FIR.
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. The testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW4 substantiates the
case of direct tapping of electricity from the LT MP boxes,
removal of illegal aluminium wires and preparation of
contemporaneous inspection and load reports at the spot. The
mere non-examination of local residents or beneficiaries, in the
presence of documentary and physical evidence proved on
record, does not by itself diminish the prosecution case.
22. As regards the question of ownership or possession of
the premises, it is settled that for an offence under Section 135
of the Act, what is required to be proved is dishonest abstraction
of electricity or involvement in such abstraction. Strict proof of
title to the premises is not a sine qua non where evidence on
record clearly indicates that the accused was abstracting and
supplying electricity through illegal means.
23. With respect to the delay in lodging the complaint,
PW1 explained that departmental procedure required raising of
a theft bill and issuance of notice prior to initiation of criminal
proceedings. In the presence of contemporaneous inspection
documents and seizure of case property, such delay stands
reasonably explained and does not, by itself, render the
prosecution case doubtful. Moreover, the accused has not
established that any prejudice was caused to him on account of
the delay in lodging the complaint.
24. 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. In the
case on hand, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to
which I have already referred to substantiate the case of illegal
tapping of electricity from the main line in the premises
occupied by the accused. Their testimony has not been
discredited in any way. Therefore, the burden shifted to the
accused to rebut the statutory presumption contained in the
aforesaid proviso. To prove the defence case, DW1 was
examined.
25. DW1, by way of Ext. DW1/A affidavit, deposed that
the accused has been residing in his neighbourhood at No. L-
382, Janta Mazdoor Colony, Welcome, Delhi - 53 since the
year 2000 along with his family members and that no raid had
never been conducted by the electricity department at the
aforesaid residence of the accused.
26. DW1 has only deposed that no raid was conducted at L-
382, Janta Mazdoor Colony, Welcome, Delhi - 53, which is
stated to be the residence of the accused. DW1 does not have a
case that no raid was conducted at No. L-21, Janta Mazdoor
Colony, Welcome, Delhi - 53. The prosecution case is that the
said premise was under the use and possession of the accused at
the time of the raid and that it was the accused who was
supplying electricity to the local residents by directly tapping
electricity from the main line. If the accused was a permanent
resident of the address as deposed to by DW1, he could
certainly have produced evidence to substantiate the same.
However, no such evidence has been produced before the Court.
As noticed earlier, nothing was brought out to discredit the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, I find no
reason(s) to disbelieve their version.
27. That being the position, I find no infirmity in the
findings of the trial court warranting an interference by this
Court.
28. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
29. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 26, 2026/kd
