[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ramjus vs B.S.E.S Rajdhani Power Ltd on 13 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 13.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 371/2018 & CRL.M.A. 5700/2018
RAMJUS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Satyajit Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Versus
B.S.E.S RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sharique Hussain, Ms. Kirti Garg
and Mr. Raghav Awasthi, Advocates
for BSES RPL.
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) read with Section 156 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act), the 1st accused in CC No.
505/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special
Electricity Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, assails the judgment
dated 07.11.2017 as per which he has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act.
2. In the complaint filed under Section 151 of the Act, it
was alleged by the complainant (respondent herein) thus:- on
07.03.2014, an inspection was conducted by the complainant,
namely, P. Bhaskar, Assistant Manager (PW1), Tausif Ahmad,
Engineer and Anoop, Lineman(PW3) at a jhuggi, situated near
Shri Mata Kirtan Mandali, B 15711, Freedom Fighter Enclave,
New Delhi 110068. The jhuggi was found to be in use and
occupation of the 1st and 2nd accused. During the inspection, it was
found that the accused persons were indulging in theft of
electricity for domestic purposes with a connected load of 6.775
KW by illegally tapping electricity from the complainant's service
cable, thereby causing loss and damage to the complainant.
2.1. After the inspection and raid, the inspection team
prepared the inspection report, load report and seizure memo dated
07.03.2014at the site. Videography was also carried out. As it was
a case of direct theft of electricity, a theft bill dated 12.03.2014
was raised to the tune of ₹ 2,22,445/-, assessed in accordance with
the provisions of Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance
Standards Regulations, 2007 and as per the applicable tariff
prevalent at the time of the inspection, against the accused persons,
which was served on them. As the accused persons failed to pay
the same, the complaint was filed alleging commission of the
offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act.
3. On receipt of summons from the trial court, the 1st
accused entered appearance. However, the 2nd accused absconded
and hence was declared a proclaimed absconder. The substance of
the accusation was read over and explained to the accused, to
which he pleaded not guilty. A1 submitted that it is a false and
fabricated case made against him by the complainant and that he
was not liable to pay any loss or damage to the complainant.
4. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were
examined and Exts. PW. PX, PW. PY, CW.1/A-B, CW. 2/A-G, P-
1, EX.PX were marked in support of the case.
5. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the 1st
accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the complainant. The 1st accused denied all those circumstances
and maintained his innocence. He submitted that he did not
commit any theft of electricity. The premises do not belong to him.
It belongs to the 2nd accused. A1 is residing at B 125A, Freedom
Fighter Colony, Maidan Garhi, Neb Sarai, New Delhi and that at
the time of inspection, he was merely present at the jhuggi, as A2,
the owner had gone to his native place. No oral or documentary
evidence was adduced by the accused.
6. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court,
vide the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2017 held the 1st accused
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act and
hence sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three months and to pay fine of ₹ 3,20,958/-, and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for
two months and also directed to pay an amount of ₹ 2,13,975/-,
towards his civil liability. Aggrieved, the 1st accused has preferred
this present appeal.
7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/ 1st accused that the latter cannot be held liable for the
offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act, inasmuch as the
2nd accused, who has been declared a proclaimed absconder, is the
owner of the jhuggi involved in the alleged theft of electricity and
the A1is residing at B 125A, Freedom Fighter Colony, Maidan
Garhi, Neb Sarai, New Delhi and that he was merely present at the
jhuggi, as the 2nd accused had asked him to look after the same..
In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the Aadhaar
card of the wife of the 2nd accused, annexed with the pleadings.
When questioned regarding his own Aadhaar card, it was
submitted that the same had not been prepared at the relevant time.
It was further submitted that, considering the nature of the jhuggi,
the number of equipment and machinery mentioned in the load
report, Ext. CW2/B, is highly improbable. It was also submitted
that none of the documents or reports prepared by the raiding
members were signed by him.
8. Per Contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for
the respondent 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 submitted that, as per the third proviso to Section
135(1) of the Act, once the existence of artificial means or
unauthorised abstraction of electricity is established, a statutory
presumption arises against the consumer or the person in
occupation of the premises. The burden thereafter shifts upon such
person to rebut the presumption by leading cogent and credible
evidence. In the present case, the accused has failed to discharge
the said burden or to place any material on record to disprove the
presumption.On the other hand,the complainant has led credible
evidence to that effect, the videography has also been duly proved,
and the accused persons have been rightly identified, goes the
argument.
9. Heard both sides and perused the records.
10. The only point that arises in the appeal is whether the
impugned judgment suffers from any infirmity calling for an
interference of the court.
11. I shall first briefly refer to the evidence on record relied
on by the complainant in support of the case. The inspection/raid
in this case is alleged to have taken place on 07.03.2014 at 02:00
PM.
12. PW1, Manager of the Complainant Company deposed
that, on 07.03.2014, he inspected the premises i.e. jhuggi near
Mata Kiran Mandal, B-15711, Freedom Fighter Enclave, New
Delhi-68.The inspection team consisted ofTausif Ahmed, Engineer
and Anoop, Lineman as well as Rahul Sharma, Videographer from
M/s Arora Photostudio Ltd..On reaching the spot, it was found that
there was no electricity meter and the accused persons were
committing theft of electricity by directly tapping from the BSES
pole with the help of a wire i.e., two blue colour multi strand
copper wire of size 2.5 mm sq. which were further connected to
the connected load of the premises in question. PW1 further
deposed that the above said premises were being used by 1st and
2ndaccused at the time of inspection. The connected load of the
premises which was running through direct theft of electricity was
assessed and the total connected load was found to be
approximately 6.775 KW. The wires approximately 1 meter long
were removed and seized. PW1 deposed that the inspection report,
load report and seizure memo were prepared at the site which have
been marked as Ex.CW-2/A to Ex.CW-2/C. The videography of
the inspection and connected load of the premises was conducted
by Sh. Rahul Sharma/Videographer during the inspection. PW1
identified A1 in the video clipping contained in Ext. CW-2/D CD.
13. PW1, in his cross examination, admitted that the
number of jhuggi has not been mentioned in the documents
prepared by him or in the complaint. During the cross examination,
when the video was again played at the request of the defence
counsel, PW1 identified the person seen wearing red cloth in the
clipping as the 2ndaccused. PW1 denied the suggestion that the
premises in question belonged to 2nd accused and not to 1st accused
and that 1st accused was not concerned with the premises in
question in any manner and that he was residing at B-125 A,
Freedom Fighter Colony, New Delhi. PW1 also denied the
suggestion that 1st accused was not concerned with the use of
electricity at the premises. He denied the suggestion that 1st
accused was falsely implicated due to his mere presence at the
spot.
14. PW3, Lineman, when examined fully supported the
case of PW1.
15. PW4 deposed that assessment of theft bill was prepared
by him on the basis of the inspection report and load report marked
Ex/CW-2/A (colly) and Ex.CW-2/B provided by the complainant
office. The theft bill, marked as Ex.CW-2/E was also prepared by
him on the basis of the formula provided under the DERC
Regulations.
16. 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.
17. The Section does not say proof of ownership of the
premises is required or that it should be shown that the person
found using the electricity is the owner of the premises. Hence,
even if the A1 is not the owner of the premises, as contended by
him, he was found in the said jhuggi and in control thereof during
the time of inspection/raid, and hence can be held liable insofar as
he was the occupier and beneficiary of the dishonest abstraction
and use of electricity, thereby attracting liability under Section 135
of the Act. This fact stands duly proved by the documents prepared
contemporaneously, that is, Ext.CW2/A inspection
report,Ext.CW2/B load report,Ext.CW2/C seizure memo as well as
the videography conducted during the inspection. These
documents corroborate the testimonies of PW1 and PW3.
18. Further, the argument advanced by A1by placing
reliance upon his wife's Aadhaar card to contend that he is a
resident of the address mentioned therein cannot also be accepted
because the testimony of PW1 and PW3 corroborated with the
documents prepared contemporaneously proved that he was in the
possession and use of the premises at the relevant time. Moreover,
the Aadhaar card of his wife cannot, in any event, be relied upon
as substantive evidence to establish his residential address so as to
absolve him from such criminal liability.
19. With regard to the number of equipment and machinery
reported to be in use in the jhuggi, as given in Ext CW2/B load
report, which recorded four lamps/bulbs of 100 W each, three
CFLs of 15 W each, one geyser with I rod of 1500 W, two cooking
heaters of 2000 W each, three televisions of 110 W each, and one
small I rod of 500 W, with the total connected load at the time of
inspection approximately 6.775 kW, the learned counsel for the 1st
accused contended that such high usage is improbable given the
nature and size of the jhuggi. However, it is seen that such a
defence was never taken up by the 1st accused during the trial stage
and not even a single question or suggestion in this regard is seen
put to PW1, the manager, or PW3, the lineman, who were
members of the inspection team. Therefore, such a contention
cannot be raised at the appellate stage.
20. It is true that Section 135(3) of the Act mandates that
the list of items seized during an inspection or raid shall be
prepared and delivered to the occupant or person, who is required
to sign the same. However, PW1 and PW3 deposed that A1 had
refused to sign the documents. Moreover, A1 was identified by
PW1 and PW3 in their testimony while reviewing the videography.
Therefore, it cannot be contended that the A1 was not present
during the preparation of these inspection documents. In view of
the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in
the reasoning of the trial court which would warrant interference
through this appeal proceeding.
21. The present appeal, sans merit is dismissed.
22. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 13, 2026/ABP
