Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
Ramjus – Appellant
Versus
B.S.E.S Rajdhani Power Ltd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C) read with Section 156 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act), the 1st accused in CC No. 505/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Electricity Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, assails the judgment dated 07.11.2017 as per which he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act.
2. In the complaint filed under Section 151 of the Act, it was alleged by the complainant (respondent herein) thus:- on 07.03.2014, an inspection was conducted by the complainant, namely, P. Bhaskar, Assistant Manager (PW1), Tausif Ahmad, Engineer and Anoop, Lineman(PW3) at a jhuggi, situated near Shri Mata Kirtan Mandali, B 15711, Freedom Fighter Enclave, New Delhi 110068. The jhuggi was found to be in use and occupation of the 1st and 2nd accused. During the inspection, it was found that the accused persons were indulging in theft of electricity for domestic purposes with a connected load of 6.775 KW by illegally tapping electricity from the complainant’s service cable, thereby causing loss and damage to the complainant.
2.1. After
Occupancy and benefit from electricity theft incur liability under Section 135 of the Electricity Act regardless of ownership, shifting the burden of proof to the accused.
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.
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses and lack of substantive evidence.
The prosecution must adhere to mandatory statutory provisions regarding searches and seizures; failure to do so undermines the validity of electricity theft convictions.
Coherent evidence linking an accused to electricity theft must be established within statutory timelines; failure to prove ownership and timely complaints results in acquittal.
The court affirmed the conviction for electricity theft based on credible evidence despite the defendant's claims of procedural impropriety.
Prosecution must prove criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to establish ownership or direct involvement negates the conviction.
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
