The accused is guilty of electricity theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, with the burden of proof on him to rebut the prosecution's established case.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C), the sole accused in SC No. 14/17 (Old No.1643/16) on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Electricity Court, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, assails the judgment dated 29.11.2017 as per which the accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act).

2. The prosecution case is that, on 21.12.2006 at about 05:05 AM, an inspection was conducted by a team of officials of the Complainant Company led by R.P. Aggarwal (PW3) – Assistant Manager at premises No. L-21, Janata Mazdoor Colony, Welcome, Delhi. During the said inspection, the accused was found indulging in direct theft of electricity by illegally and dishonestly abstracting electricity from the BSES YPL LT MP boxes and was further supplying it to 229 dwelling units, from whom the accused was collecting money. The connected load was found to be 552.564 KW/DX/DT for domestic use.

2.1. As it was a case of direct theft of electricity, a theft bill was raised to the tune of Rs. 94,28,504/- against the accused, which was served on him. Later, Ext. PW1/A Complaint was filed alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ).

3. Based on Ext. PW1/A Complaint, Crime No.711/2007 Welcome Police Station, that is, Exhibit PW7/B FIR, was registered by PW8, Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI). PW6, Investigating Officer conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, the chargesheet/final report dated 14.12.2007 was submitted before the trial court, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.

4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court as per order dated 15.12.2008, is seen to have framed a Charge for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act, which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exts.PW1/A, PW2/A, PW3/A to PW3/D, PW3/E to PW3/H, PW5/A, PW6/A, PW6/C, PW6/D, PW7/A, PW7/B, PW8/A, PW8/B, PW8/C, and PW8/DA were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with respect to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. The accused submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the present case by one ASI Surinder Pandey in connivance with other police officials of Welcome Police Station as one of his friends, namely, Abid, had earlier got those police officials arrested by the CBI and on account of the said incident, they were in inimical terms with him and so has falsely implicated him in the present case. The accused further submitted that he and his family members had also been implicated in another case under Section 307 IPC , in which case he was acquitted.

7. DW1 was examined on behalf of the accused. No documentary evidence was produced by the accused.

8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2017 held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act and hence sentenced him to undergo simple