JUDGMENT

1. By this appeal the appellant has assailed judgment dated 20th August, 2010 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 135 of Electricity Act,2003 and order on sentence dated 25th August, 2010 whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.87,03,303/-.

2. On 14th July, 2006 a team of enforcement officials inspected the premises belonging to Shri Sushil Sharma, appellant. The premises was situated in village Baprola, near Khate Wala Sub-Station, Nangloi. An industrial unit was running in the premises. There was no authorized electricity supply in the premises. There was an electric pole of LV main located within the premises and the electric supply to the industrial unit was taken by direct tapping of electricity from the electric pole using heavy duty electric cables. It was found that it was a case of direct theft of electricity by tapping electricity from complainant's LV main line running through the premises of the accused with the help of cable. Since there was no legal connection, no meter was there. The team took photographs showing theft of electricity and drew sketches depicting electricity being stolen from BSES LV mains line. The inspection team after inspection seized the material with help of which theft was being committed including distribution board installed by the appellant to distribute stolen electricity to different machines. At the time of raid, the accused/appellant, his workers and manager were found present and the industrial unit was functioning. However, during inspection accused slipped away from the site and therefore the inspection note was not signed by the accused. The total load found connected in the industrial unit for which electricity was being illegally drawn was 290.062 KW. After detecting this theft of electricity for running an entire industrial unit, a complaint was filed before learned Special Judge for trial of the accused. During trial, the inspection team members appeared in the witness box and proved the direct theft of electricity from LV mains pole of the complainant. The cables wires and distribution board seized from the spot were exhibited. The photographs and sketch showing connection having been taken from the pole directly into the factory premises and going up to distribution board and machines were proved.

3. The appellant's main contention before the trial Court was that he had nothing to do with the premises and the complainant has not brought on record evidence to show that he was the owner of the premises or he was the user of the stolen electricity. It was argued that he was made accused only on the basis of hearsay evidence of workers and manager and workers and manager were not examined in the Court. However, the trial Court turned down this argument and found there was enough evidence to show that it was the 'accused/appellant' who had indulged into theft.

4. In appeal, the appellant has argued that the inspection team had taken many photographs but in none of the photographs, the focus was on the appellant thus, the presence of the appellant on the site was not proved. The appellant or the workers present at the site were not apprehended by the police. If the appellant was indulging in theft he would have been arrested on the spot itself since the inspection team was accompanied by the local police. Non-arrest of the appellant shows that he was not present on the spot and he had nothing to do with the premises. The next ground taken is that the assessment of the connected load was not done on the spot since the column of total connected load was left blank and connected load was assessed on speculation basis in the office of the complainant. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that no independent person was examined as a witness in this case. It is further submitted that since there was no evidence to connect the appellant with the theft of electricity, there was no proof of ownership,