Page 1 of 15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on: 7^th July, 2011

+(1) CRL.REV.P. 685/2007

NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Vikram Nandrajog and Mr. Sushil

Jaswal, Advocates

versus

SURENDER KUMAR

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate

AND

+ (2) CRL.REV.P. 563/2007

NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Vikram Nandrajog and Mr. Sushil

Jaswal, Advocates

versus

ROSHAN LAL GOEL & ANR ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. A.Maitri with Ms. Radhika

Chandersekher and Ms. Shaily

Malhotra, Advocates.

AND

+ (3) CRL.REV.P. 564/2007

NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Vikram Nandrajog and Mr. Sushil

Jaswal, Advocates

Versus

JINDAL INDUSTRIES & ANR ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. V.K.Goel, Advocate

2011:DHC:3328

Page 2 of 15

AND

+ (4) CRL.REV.P. 306/2007

NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Vikram Nandrajog and Mr. Sushil

Jaswal, Advocates

versus

AMAR INDUSTRIES & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ujjawal K. Jha and Mr. B.P.

Aggarwal, Advocates

Coram:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may

Not necessary

be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

Yes

in the Digest?

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. The short issue which arises in the present petition is whether a

prosecution case can be thrown out at the stage of charge itself on the ground

that there was no notification authorizing the concerned officer to carry out

the inspection on the date when the inspection was carried out.

2. In these petitions complaints were filed against the Respondents for

committing the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003(in short

2011:DHC:3328

Page 3 of 15

„the Act‟) on the basis of raids allegedly conducted by the inspection teams in

the premises of the Respondents on 25^th September, 2003, 26^th February,

2004, 12^th March, 2004 and 8^th January 2004 respectively. All these

inspections were carried out prior to 31^st March, 2004 when the notification of

the Government of NCT of Delhi (Department of Power) was issued

empowering the technical officers of the rank of managers/executive

engineers and above in the departments dealing with distribution, commercial

and enforcement functions as authorized officers for the purpose of Section

135 of the Act. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that the officers

of the complainant could not derive any power under Regulation 25(i) to

conduct a raid on the premises in question on the relevant date under Section

135 of the Act. Since it was held that the inspection in the premises was not

made by the authorized officers so all consequential proceedings initiated

against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 135 of

the Act were illegal and the Respondents were discharged.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner contends that theft of

electricity is an offence. The power to inspect a premises is inherent in the

distribution licensee that is the Petitioner. Prior to the notification dated 31^st

March, 2004 there was no requirement for a statutory notification regarding

designation of officers authorized to inspect premises. The procedure was

2011:DHC:3328

Page 4 of 15

that the inspection teams authorized by the department used to conduct

inspections and office orders dated 11^th July, 1996 and 24^th December, 1996

have been placed on record in this regard. It is contended that under Section

135(2) of the Act, the power of inspection and prosecution is with the

licensee/supp