* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 13.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on:16.04.2026 + CRL.A. 627/2016 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1328/2016 KRISHNA GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Baliyan and Ms.

Shivanshi Panwar, Advocates versus THE STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI Parveen Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Shagun Ruhil, Mr. Shreenivash, Mr. Karan Chopra, and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocates for Respondent No.2 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 read with Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C), the sole accused in SC No. 176/2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Electricity Court, North-West District, Rohini, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 02.04.2016 as per which he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act).

2. The prosecution case is that, on 29.01.2015 at about

12:10 PM, a joint inspection team of the complainant Company, namely, NDPL/TPDDL comprising of PW3 Senior Manager, PW4 Photographer, PW5 Assistant Officer, inspected the premises of the accused, situated near Samrat Cinema, Shakurpur, near MCD Parking, Delhi and found that the accused was indulging in direct theft of electricity by illegally tapping from the LT network of TPDDL. At the time of inspection, a connected load of 10.200 KW was found being used for commercial purposes, thereby causing wrongful gain to the accused and wrongful loss to the complainant Company, thus committing an offence punishable under aforesaid Section.

2.1. As it was a case of direct theft of electricity, a theft bill was raised to the tune of ₹9,23,395/- against the accused, which was served on him. Later, Ext. PW2/A Complaint was filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act.

3. Based on Ext. PW2/A Complaint, Crime No.271/2015Saraswati Vihar Police Station, that is, Ext. PW1/A FIR, was registered by PW1, Head Constable (HC). PW8, Investigating Officer conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, the chargesheet/final report was submitted on 11.12.2015 before the trial court, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under the aforementioned Section.

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 14.12.2015 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 Ext. PW1/A-C, Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW3/A-C, Ext. PW3/DA, Ext. PW4/A-1toA-42, Ext. PW4/B, Ext. PW6/A-B, Ext.

PW7/A, Ext. PW8/A 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. He further submitted that three commercial electricity meters were installed in his name and that he was using electricity properly through the said authorised connections, and that no direct theft of electricity had been committed by him. It was also submitted that the officials of TPDDL had illegally demanded a sum of ₹5,000/- from him, and upon his refusal of the said demand, he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. The accused examined himself as DW1. Ext. DW1/1 –

1/3 were marked.

8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2016 held the accused guilty of the offence