The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of conclusive evidence to prove dishonest abstraction of energy under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the need for tangible physical evidence of tampering before drawing a presumption of consumer's guilt.

1. The instant petition is being filed against the impugned order dated 16.08.2011, whereby, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has been framed against the petitioner.

2. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to set aside the Notice dated 16.08.2011 and consequent proceedings thereof for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.

3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the complaint, the petitioner and Deepika Mittal (Registered Consumer) were made respondent/accused. In the said complaint the allegations made against the petitioner in para 3 is reproduced as under:-

“3 That there is no other electricity connection installed at the said property of the petitioner, but the complainant has been wrongly alleging and sending bills in respect of the connection having “K. No. 2541C3240137”, when at the time of the purchase of the said property the petitioner did not find any such connection working at the said property.”

4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused wife had purchased the property bearing No.D-819, New Friends colony, New Delhi, in July, 2003 and the petitioner found installed only one electricity connecting having “K.No.2541C0080042” at the said property, which is for a sanctioned load of “37KW”. There was no other electricity connection installed at the said property of the petitioner, but the complainant has been wrongly alleging and sending bills in respect of the connection having “K.No.25413240137”.

5. Further submits that the respondent’s officials in a clandestine and illegal manner carried out an inspection at the premises of the respondent on 21.02.2005. However, no irregularity was found during the course of the said inspection. The respondent wrongly and falsely implicated the petitioner in the DAE case on the basis of the said inspection. Inspection Report dated 21.02.2005 is attached with as Annexure-B at page 30-33.

6. The inspection team could not detect the case of DAE or FAE but the reporting team had simply stated in its report that “Consumption patter reveals that there is some tempering in monitoring equipments. According CT Meter got tested and found 69.49% slow. Total connected load—35.240 KW/DX. Sanctioned load 37.00KW/DX”.

7. As per the inspection report, the connected load was found to be 9KW which is well within the sanctioned load of 37 KW. The meter seals and half seals were found intact and O.K. with their numbers. The respondents officials remarked in the meter testing report dated 21.02.2005 (Annexure C of petition at pages 34 and 35) that the IR No. 318092 dated 30.03.2001 pasted by the then DVB on meter box found torn out, while in fact in the report dated 14.04.2001 by the DESU/DVB it is remarked at the IR was torn for proper sealing, hence there is no question of torn off the said IR seal by the petitioner.

8. The inspection report further stated “seals found O.K./genuinely doubtful”. In the column for any other remarks the report had the remarks “Digital Meter—found upset”.

9. The respondents officials prepared the Meter testing report dated 21.02.2005 and the same was of “K.No. 2542C0080042”. In the report it was remarked as “IR No. dated 30.03.2001 then DVB, was pasted on meter box but found torn”. Thereafter in the said report there were the details of the seals and their numbers were given. It was stated in the said report that “seals genuinely doubtful”.

10. The respondents further filed the Seizure memo and as per the same “Meter Seal Box (4Nos.), F-96479, F-96480, F-96481, F96482” were seized. The complainant’s officials further alleged in the said inspection report that the digit counter of the meter was found upset. The upsetting of the digit counter is a technical fault in the meter and the respondent is responsible for the same as it is charging the meter rent in the bills.

11. The department issued the personal hearing for dishonest abstraction of energy dated 24.03.2005 and in