Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Thakur S/o Vinod Thakur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inspection leading to theft accusation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. witness testimonies regarding the theft. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. defense witness testimonies and counter claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. court's observations on evidence credibility. (Para 20 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. appellant's arguments on trial court's errors. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 30) |
| 6. defense objections related to procedural lapses. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. evidence related to identity and presence during inspection. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 8. conclusions on evidentiary credibility and doubt. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 9. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’), has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/ BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. against impugned Order dated 18.01.2021 of learned ASJ, Special Electricity Court, Dwarka, Delhi whereby the Respondent No.1/ Deepak Thakur, has been acquitted under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 in CC No.423484/2016.
2. The brief facts, as narrated in the Complai
The prosecution must prove the accused's involvement in an alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt; failure results in acquittal.
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.
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 adhere to mandatory statutory provisions regarding searches and seizures; failure to do so undermines the validity of electricity theft convictions.
The court affirmed the conviction for electricity theft based on credible evidence despite the defendant's claims of procedural impropriety.
Prosecution failed to establish the appellant's connection to the premises where alleged electricity theft occurred, leading to the reversal of conviction.
The burden of proof lies on the respondent to establish that irregularities with the meter box and wires existed from the beginning and were not responsible for the tampering.
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural lapses and lack of substantive evidence.
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
