The prosecution must prove the accused's involvement in an alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt; failure results in acquittal.

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 Complaint, are that on 10.07.2008, a joint inspection team, comprising of Sh. Awadesh Rai (Sr. Manager Enforcement), Sh. J. Pal, (DET, Enforcement) and Sh. Ashok Kumar, (Field Executive, Enforcement), on directions of DGM, Enforcement, inspected the premises i.e. c/o Mazdoor Steel Works, RZF-1005, Ambedkar Marg, Raj Nagar Part II, Palam, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘the premises’).

3. At the time of inspection of the premises, Respondent No.1 Deepak Thakur was found using electricity. He told the Inspection Team that Accused No.2 Anil Kumar was the owner of the premises in question. Inspection Team found that no electricity meter was existing at the site and Respondents were found to be indulging in direct theft of electricity illegally by directly tapping it from BSES LV Mains with the help of illegal wires, which was seized by the team vide Seizure Memo dated 10.07.2008 prepared at site. The Inspection Team assessed the total connected load running on direct theft supply, as 21.803 KW/NX/DT for non Domestic Purpose; and Load Report was prepared. Visual footage of the inspection was recorded by the photographer from M/s Arora Photo Studio.

4. Inspection Report, Meter details and Load Report in the Form of Assessment of Connected Load, as well as Seizure Memo, were prepared at site. It was stated that the aforesaid illegal act of the Respondents has caused wrongful loss to the Complainant Company and wrongful gain to the Respondents and were thus acting dishonestly.

5. Thus, it was a case of direct theft of electricity and theft Bill for a sum of Rs.8,12,523/- with due date as 05.08.2008, as per DERC regulations and Tariff Order, was raised by the Complainant Company. However, Respondent failed and neglected to make the payment of the theft bill amount. Hence, the Company filed the Complainant in the Court of learned ASJ.

6. Respondent Deepak Thakur appeared in the Court, against whom Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003, was framed.

7. However, Accused No.2 Anil Kumar failed to appear and was declared Proclaimed Offender under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., vide Order dated 26.04.2011.

8. The Complainant examined CW1 Pankaj Tandon, Assistant Manager (Legal), BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, who had deposed that he had filed the Complaint Ex.CW1/A and it had his signatures at point A.

9. CW2 Awdhesh Rai, Member of the Team was examined.

10. Thereafter, on appreciation of the evidence, the Respondent was acquitted vide Judgment dated 10.07.2017. Thereafter, Review Application under Section 157 Electricity Act was filed on behalf of the BSES, which was allowed vide Order dated 19.12.2017 on the ground that there was a technical difficulty in viewing the content of the CD. Consequently, the Judgment dated 10.07.20