Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
N.D.P.L. – Appellant
Versus
Aman Nasha Mukti Kendra and Another – Respondents
Crl. Appeal No. 813 of 2007, Crl. M.A. No. 14310 of 2007
Decided On : 30-03-2022
Electricity Act - Criminal Appeal - Section 156 - Inspection, Theft of Electricity - Section 135, Section 138 - DERC Regulations - 2002, 2003
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an electricity distribution company, filed a criminal complaint against the respondent for theft of electricity. The trial court acquitted the respondent, leading to the current appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's acquittal was based on the lack of evidence and completion of witness examination. The appellate court found no grounds to interfere with the acquittal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence of theft of electricity, completion of witness examination, and the trial court's decision to acquit the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court emphasized the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the caution required in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's acquittal of the respondent.
ORDER :
1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 156 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been filed against the final order/judgment of acquittal dated 1st August, 2007 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi) (hereinafter “Learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 321/2006.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Limited Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at - 33 KV Grid Substation Building, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009 and also having its enforcement assessment Cell, opposite C-2 Block, Keshavpuram, Lawrence Road, Delhi-110035. The appellant company is engaged in the business of distribution of electricity in the North and North-West Delhi.
3. On 18th June, 2005, a joint inspection team of the appellant company had inspected the premises of respondent no. 1/accused. The said inspection was done under the direct supervision of Manager (ENF) NW, in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in accordance with Section 25 of the DERC (Performance Standards-Metering and Billing) Regulations, 2002. The premises of the respondent no. 1/accused were using and consuming the electricity being distributed and supplied by the Appellant-Company. The aforesaid inspection was conducted in presence of the accused/representative/employees of the accused and the joint inspection team was comprised of Sh. Virender Kumar-Manager and Sh. Imran Khan - Officer ENF-NW. During the course of investigation of the aforesaid premises of the respondent no. 1/accused, the inspection team observed the following irregularities:
Illegal wires/cables were removed from the site and bandied over to zonal staff vide Seizure Memo/Paper Seal No. 51274 dated 18.6.2005. Establishment type - Farm House.”
4. The inspection team further found a connected total load of 14.313 KW against the sanctioned load of NIL KW. The members of the above said inspection team prepared, at site, an Inspection Report dated 18th June, 2005 bearing Serial Number 108062, the same was duly signed by all the members comprising the joint inspection team.
5. The joint inspection team had, thereafter, prepared a joint inspection report and recorded the following observations:
Necessary photographs taken by M/s Navani Photo Studio.”
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and on the basis of the inspection report dated 18th June, 2005, the appellant Company had raised a Final Assessment Bill dated 22nd June, 2005 for a sum of Rs. 4,12,201/- (Rs. Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand Two hundred and One only) against the respondent no. 1/accused to be deposited on or before 29th June, 2005. It was further stipulated in the said bill that if the respondent no. 1/accused fails to make the aforesaid payment in time, a late payment surcharge (LPSC) shall be charged @ 1.5 % per month. The said final assessment bill dated 12th January, 2005 was tried to be served on the respondent no. 1/accused but he refused to receive the same and despite being aware of the said bill the respondent no. 1/accused continued to neglect to pay the same for a substantial period of time. The appellant had filed the Criminal Complaint No. 321/2006 under Section 135 read with 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
7. Thereafter, pre-summoning evidence of the appellant's witnesses (CW-1 and CW-2) were recorded and accordingly based on the entire mater
An acquittal under the Electricity Act reinforces the presumption of innocence, requiring credible evidence and caution from appellate courts before altering trial court decisions.
The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence and independent witnesses to establish guilt in theft of electricity cases; mere allegations are insufficient for conviction.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence linking the accused to the offense.
In appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should only intervene when there is compelling evidence of error in the trial's findings, reaffirming the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court must uphold an acquittal unless there is clear evidence of illegality or error in the trial court's judgment; it cannot reverse an acquittal merely on the possibility of a differe....
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
