Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Inderjeet – Appellant
Versus
State and Another – Respondents
Crl. Appeal No. 1197 of 2012
Decided On : 15-02-2018
Electricity Theft - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 135 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which deals with the theft of electricity. The court emphasized the necessity of establishing the illegal use of electricity by the accused and the linkage with the installation of the illegal meter before the offence under this section can be made out. The prosecution failed to prove the ownership/occupation of the disputed shop with the appellant, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for theft of electricity. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was guilty of theft of electricity based on an inspection report and seizure memo prepared at the premises where a fake meter was found. The appellant denied his connection with the premises and claimed that he was not the owner or occupier of the premises. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the ownership/occupation of the disputed shop with the appellant and that there was no evidence to show that the appellant was using the electricity generated from the illegal meter installed at that premises. The court acquitted the appellant of the charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership/occupation of the premises where the illegal meter was found and the appellant's connection with the premises. The prosecution failed to prove these essential elements beyond all reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary ingredient of the appellant's ownership/occupation of the premises and his use of the illegally abstracted electricity, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the trial court was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charges.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and order on sentence dated 17.09.2012 and 26.09.2012 respectively wherein the appellant Inderjeet stood convicted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 37,99,314/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of six months. The civil liability computed under Section 154 (5) of the Act had worked out to Rs. 25,32,876/- which was payable with simple interest @ 6% per annum. During the course of this appeal, the appellant had died. His legal heirs i.e. his widow and son are brought on record. They are contesting the appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint dated 06.08.2008 alleging that the appellant was guilty of theft of electricity; this was pursuant to an inspection carried out by the joint inspection team of respondent No. 2 which was dated 22.11.2007. This joint inspection had been conducted at premises No. 615, khasra No. 126, Saini Mohalla, Bhootonwali Gali, Nangloi which was besides premises No. 621-A of the same locality. In the aforenoted premises (615), a connected load of 83.42 KW was found being used for non-domestic purposes; this meter installed at the premises was found to be fake. Inspection report, seizure memo and meter details report was prepared at the spot. The appellant was asked to sign but he refused.
3. The prosecution examined five witnesses of whom the star witnesses were PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4. They were the members of joint inspection team. PW-3 and PW-4 had identified the appellant at the spot. The appellant was also served of the summons dated 04.03.2010 at the same address substantiating the submission of the complainant that the appellant was the owner, occupier, user and had a direct link with the premises where the disputed meter was found installed. No documents/papers were however produced before the Court to prove the ownership of the appellant.
4. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied his connection with the aforenoted premises; submission being that his wife was the owner of shop No. 621-A, he had no connection with shop No. 615.
5. In evidence two witnesses were produced by the accused; the defence witnesses produced documents to substantiate his submission that an electricity meter was installed in the name of his wife at shop No. 621-A where electricity charges were being paid by her.
6. The Trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced before him was of the view that there was direct linkage and connection of the appellant with the premises No. 621-A, an order of conviction had accordingly followed.
7. On behalf of the appellant, it has been argued that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported as Vishal Agrawal and Another vs. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 696 cognizance under Section 135 of the Electricity Act cannot be taken unless an FIR has been registered; this is a cognizable offence and cognizance on a complaint is bad. Proceedings are liable to be quashed. His second submission is that the evidence of the PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 who were the members of joint inspection team does not in any manner establish that the disputed premises (615) where the offending electricity meter was found, was in manner connected with the appellant; categorical statement of the appellant being that he was not the owner of this premises. It was for the prosecution to prove its case to the hilt. The videography proved on record by the complainant also did not evidence the presence of the appellant at the spot. The appellant is the owner of the shop No. 621-A for which he has adduced evidence and his witness has established his submission that he is paying electricity charges for the electricity being generated in that shop which is in the name of his wife. Shop No. 615 is not connected to him.
8. These
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
