The prosecution must establish the alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt, and proper documentation and adherence to regulations are crucial in proving the accused's involvement in the offence.

Vipin Sanghi, J. (Open Court):--

1. The present leave petition has been preferred to seek leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 02.09.2013 passed by Sh. Arun Kumar Arya, Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Electricity), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in CC No. 119/2007, whereby the respondent is acquitted of the offence under Section 135/ 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The case of the petitioner complainant was that on 05.06.2006, at about 02:25 PM a team comprising of four officers/ employees of the petitioner – including PW-2 Sh. M. M. Sharma raided the premises bearing No. 46, Ground Floor, Parda Bagh, Darya Ganj, Delhi in the presence of representatives of accused/ respondent. The accused was found indulging in direct theft of electricity from BYPL service cable. No meter was found installed at the premises. The accused was using the load of 2.205 KW / NX / DT. The Manager (Enf.) was telephonically called to the spot, who seized all the material evidence. The official of the petitioner clicked photographs at the site with the help of digital camera. The reports and documents were not signed by the representatives of the accused at the spot. The accused was booked for the offence of direct theft of electricity and assessment bill of Rs. 1,02,738/- was raised against the accused. On his failure to pay the same, complaint in question was preferred against the accused.

3. The accused was summoned vide order dated 20.07.2007 of the Trial Court. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed for the offence punishable under Sections 135 and 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused vide order dated 01.07.2008, to which the accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial.

4. The petitioner complainant examined two witnesses, namely PW 1 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan (Authorized representative) and PW 2 Sh. M. M. Sharma (DGM). On behalf of the accused, son of the accused Sh. Sunny Bajaj was examined as DW1. The star witness of the prosecution PW-2 and Sh. M.M. Sharma deposed that on 05.06.2006 at about 02:25 pm he along with Sh. Akhilesh Kumar (GET), Sh. K. U. Rehman (DET) and Sh. Javed Saleem (Lineman) had conducted a raid at the premises bearing No. 46, Ground Floor, Parda Bagh, Darya Ganj. At the time of inspection no electricity meter was installed at the site. However, the accused was illegally using the electricity from BSES line through illegal wire which were further connected with the connected load of the said premises. The total connected load of 2.205 KW was being used by the accused for non – domestic purpose. The load report (Ex. CW2/3), the inspection report (Ex. CW2/3), meter reading report (Ex. CW 2 /2) bore his signatures at point A. They also took photographs (Ex. CW2/5 collectively) and their CD (Ex.CW2/7) was prepared. He deposed that during the inspection, the accused was present at the spot. Sh. Vikrant Seth (Business Manager) was called to the spot for seizing the case property. All the documents were prepared at the spot, and offered to the accused, but he refused to receive or sign the same and also did not allow to paste the same.

5. In his cross-examination PW-2 admitted that he had the written authority to conduct the raid from senior officers, but same was not filed on record. He did not procure the document pertaining to occupancy, or tenancy, or the ownership of the inspected premises. He could not tell the exact nature of activity carried out in the premises. He further admitted that the photographs, which were kept on record were not of the premises in question and the same were of the adjoining premises. The person present at site stated himself as Mohan Lal. PW-2 stated that theft was being committed by tapping through service line of other user.

6. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused denied the allegations against him. DW-1 deposed that neither the shop in question was in the name of accused Mohan Lal, nor any meter was installed in