Delhi District Court
State (Bses) vs Rahul on 24 July, 2025
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahul
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHISH RASTOGI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 05
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
SC No. 644/2021
FIR No. 32/2021
Under Section 135 Electricity Act
PS Nand Nagri
State
versus
Rahul
S/o Sh. Rakesh
R/o H.No.A-4/59, 1st Floor
Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093
.... Accused
Date of institution 03.12.2021
Judgment reserved on 12.07.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 24.07.2025
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Rahul is facing trial upon the allegations that he
indulged in theft of electricity and thereby, committed an
offence punishable under Section 135 of Electricity Act
Digitally
2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
signed by
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi
Rastogi Date:
2025.07.24
16:35:31
+0530Judgment 1 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. RahulBrief Facts
2. On 14.12.2020, at about 7.58 am, an inspection was
conducted by the inspection team of BSES Yamuna Power
Limited (hereinafter referred as complainant company)
headed by Sh. Jitender Kumar (Manager of complainant
company) in the residential premises of accused at i.e.
H.No.A-4/59, 1st Floor, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.
3. At the time of inspection, no electricity meter was found
installed at the site and accused was found indulging in
direct theft of electricity with the help of single core black
colour PVC insulated aluminium wires which were found
connected from LT Box of BSES YPL Network by
damaging the same.
4. At the time of inspection, accused was present at the
inspected premises and total connected load was found to
be 3.000 KW which was being used for domestic purposes.
Videographer Sh. Sachin Kumar captured videography of
inspection proceeding. Inspection documents i.e.
Inspection Report, Load Report and Seizure Memo were
prepared at the spot.
5. On the basis of connected load, applicable tariff and
following the guidelines of DERC, the complainant
company assessed the demand to the tune of Rs.31,731/-
Ashish Accordingly, a theft bill was raised and sent to the accused
Rastogi
Digitally signed by but he did not make payment of the theft bill.
Ashish Rastogi
Date: 2025.07.24
16:35:36 +0530
Judgment 2 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahul
6. On failure to pay the theft bill amount, complainant
company through its Authorized Officer lodged a
complaint U/s 135 Electricity Act with SHO, PS Nand
Nagri for registration of FIR against the accused.
Thereafter, FIR was registered and investigation of the
case was initially marked to HC Rajeev, IO of the case.
Notice
7. On 26.07.2023, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C for commission of
offence punishable under Section 135 & 138 of the Act
was given to accused to which he did not plead guilty and
claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
8. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution
examined following three witnesses.
9. PW1 Sh. Jitender Kumar is the Manager of the
complainant company who was heading the inspection
team. He proved the CD of videography of the inspection
proceedings as Ex.PW1/A, inspection report as
Ex.PW1/B, load report as Ex.PW1/C, seizure memo as
Ex.PW1/D, advisory notice Ex.PW1/E and theft bill as
Ex.PW1/F. He also proved the complaint as Ex.PW1/G
lodged by him. He also identified the case property i.e.
two black colour aluminium wires of 10 mm sq size
having length of one feet before the court as the same
Digitally
signed by which was removed and seized at the spot.
Ashish Ashish Rastogi
Date:
Rastogi 2025.07.24
16:35:40
+0530
Judgment 3 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahul
10. PW2 HC Rajeev is the IO of the case. PW2/IO proved
copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/A, site plan Ex.PW2/B, Notice
U/s 41A Cr.P.C. given to accused as Ex.PW2/C,
interrogation report as Ex.PW2/D and copy of Adhar Card
of accused and ownership documents of the inspected
premises as Ex.PW2/E. He also proved the Pabandinama
as Ex.PW2/F.
11. PW3 Sh. Sachin Kumar is the videographer who, on the
instruction of team leader Sh. Jitender Kumar, captured
videography of the inspection proceedings. He proved the
video contained in the CD as Ex.PW1/A and Certificate
U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW3/A.
Statement of Accused
12.All incriminating evidence which has come on record,
were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused
denied all material allegations and stated that he is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He
has not committed any theft of electricity. However,
accused did not lead any Defence Evidence.
Arguments
13.Ld. Addl. PP submitted that accused was found indulged in
direct theft of electricity and no electricity meter was
found installed at his premises. Ld. Addl. PP further
submitted that prosecution has proved allegations against
Digitally the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence
signed by
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi of prosecution witnesses. He also emphasized that
Rastogi Date:
2025.07.24
16:35:48
+0530
Judgment 4 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahulinspection was conducted as per Rules and applicable
Regulations. Thus, it is prayed that accused may be
convicted.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that
accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in
this case. The case property i.e. PVC aluminium cable is
planted one and such type of cable is easily available in the
market. It was submitted that accused has not committed
any theft of electricity as alleged by the prosecution.
Analysis
15.Before dealing with the factual aspects of the present case,
it is deemed appropriate to firstly specify and discuss the
relevant provisions of the Act which are required to be
gone into for appropriate disposal of the case. The present
case pertains to Section 135 & 138 of the Act. The
provision of Section 135 & 138 of the Electricity Act is
reproduced as under:-
Section 135 Theft of electricity – (1) Whoever,
dishonestly, (a) taps, makes or causes to be made
any connection with overhead, underground or
under water lines or cables, or service wires, or
service facilities of a licensee or supplier as the case
may be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered
meter, current reversing transformer, loop
connection or any other device or method which
interferes with accurate or proper registration,
calibration or metering of electric current or
otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is
stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus,
Digitally
signed by equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with
Rastogi Date:
2025.07.24
16:35:52
Judgment
+0530 5 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahulthe proper or accurate metering of electricity, or
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or
(e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for
which the usage of electricity was authorized,
so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years or with fine or with both:
Section 138. Interference with meters or works of
licensee. – (1) Whoever, –
a) unauthorisedly connects any meter, indicator or
apparatus with any electronic line through which
electricity is supplied by a licensee or disconnects
the same from any such electric line; or
b) unauthorisedly reconnects any meter, indicator or
apparatus with any electric line or other works being
the property of a licensee when the said electric line
or other works has or have been cut or disconnected;
or
c) lays or causes to be laid, or connects up any works
for the purpose of communicating with any other
works belonging to a licensee; or
d) maliciously injures any meter, indicator, or
apparatus belonging to a licensee or willfully or
fraudulently alters the index of any such meter,
indicator or apparatus or prevents any such meter,
indicator or apparatus from duly registering;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine which
may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both,
and in the case of a continuing offence, with a daily
fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; and
if it is proved that any means exist for making such
connection as is referred to in clause (a) or such re-
connection as is referred to in clause (b), or such
communication as is referred to in clause (c), for
causing such alteration or prevention as is referred
to in clause (d), and that the meter, indicator or
apparatus is under the custody or control of the
consumer, whether it is his property or not, it shall
be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such
connection, reconnection, communication,
alteration, prevention or improper use, as the case
Digitally
signed by may be has been knowingly and willfully caused by
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi such consumer.
Rastogi Date:
16. There is a presumption mentioned in the third proviso of
2025.07.24
16:35:56
+0530
Judgment 6 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahul
Section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which reads as
follows:-
“Provided also that if it is proved that any
artificial means or means not authorised by the
Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may
be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use
of electricity by the consumer, it shall be
presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any
abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has
been dishonestly caused by such consumer.”
17.Dishonest intention has not been defined in Electricity Act.
Section 24 IPC defines ‘dishonestly’ and holds that
Whoever does anything with the intention of causing
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.
18.Allegations against the accused are about hooking black
colour PVC insulated aluminium cable which BSES YPL
Pole by damaging BYPL Network and connecting the said
cable with inspected premises. Therefore, section 135(1) of
the Act would be relevant and applicable. As mentioned,
dishonest intention is primary ingredient to impute any
culpability in this matter.
19. Under Electricity Act‘ Regulations are framed by the Delhi
Electricity Regularity Commission. Regulation 60 to 63
deals with theft of electricity. Regulation 60 empowers
authorized Officer to inspect premises. Under Regulation
61 Authorized Officer makes Inspection Report,
Digitally Regulation 62 lays down procedure to report a case of theft
signed by
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi and under Regulation 63 there is assessment of theft bill.
Rastogi Date:
2025.07.24
16:36:01
+0530
Judgment 7 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahul
20. Regulations 60-63 of DERC are as under:-
Theft of Electricity under Section 135 of the Act 60. Inspections
of the premises and electrical installations by Authorized
officer: –
(1) The Authorized officer shall promptly conduct inspection
of any premises either suo-moto or on receipt of
information regarding theft of electricity:
(2) Provided that the Authorized officer may avail the
assistance of employees of the Licensee for conducting
inspection.
(3) The Authorized officer shall carry his visiting card bearing
his photograph and photo identity card issued under
Regulation 55(3).
(4) Photo ID shall be shown and visiting card bearing his
photograph shall be handed over to the consumer or the
occupier of the premises before entering the premises and
take the acknowledgment.
(5) he Authorized officer shall prepare an inspection report as
per the provisions under these Regulations.
61. Preparation of Report by Authorized officer: – (1) In
the event of detection of theft of electricity, the Authorized
officer shall prepare a detailed Report at site, in the manner
as prescribed in the Commission’s Orders.
(2) All the material evidences such as tampered meter,
tampered meter seal and artificial means used for illegal
abstraction of energy and the documentary evidences etc.,
which are relevant to the case and found during the
inspection, shall be seized under a seizure memo and
sealed in the presence of the consumer or his authorized
representative and be kept as a proof along with
photography and video recording of the premises.
(3) A detailed description of the material seized, including
date, time and place and name & address of witnesses to
the seizure shall be recorded on the exterior of the cover
and signatures of all witnesses shall be affixed on the
sealing points: Provided that if the witness refuses to sign,
the same shall be recorded in the report and captured in the
videography.
(4) The inspection Report shall be signed by the
Authorized officer and a copy of the same shall be handed
Digitally
signed by
Ashish
over to the consumer or his representative at the site
Ashish Rastogi immediately under proper acknowledgement. The other
Rastogi Date:
2025.07.24 persons present at site may also sign the inspection report.
16:36:09
+0530
Judgment 8 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahul
(5) If consumer or his representative at site refuses to
acknowledge and accept the copy of the report, a copy of
the report shall be pasted at a conspicuous place in or
outside the premises and photographed and/or video
recorded. Another copy of the same report shall be sent to
the consumer under Registered Post or Speed Post or
electronically on the same day or on the next day of the
inspection.
(6) The inspection report shall form the basis for further
action as per the provisions contained in Regulations.
62. Procedure for prosecution for Theft of Electricity: -(1)
The prosecution for theft of electricity under section 135 of
the Act shall be initiated only in the cases where dishonest
intention is evident from the relevant facts, records and
other evidence of the case.
(2) In case sufficient evidence is found to establish theft of
electricity, the Authorized officer under sub-section (2) of
Section 135 of the Act shall seize and seal all material
evidence including wires/cables, meter, service line etc.,
from the premises under a seizure Memo.
(3) The supply of the consumer shall be disconnected
immediately on detection of theft only by such officer of
the Licensee or supplier as authorised for the purpose by
the Commission, under sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of
the Act: Provided that such officer shall lodge a complaint
in writing in Police Station having jurisdiction over the site
of occurrence of the offence within twenty-four hours from
time of such disconnection: Provided further that such
officer shall also send to the consumer a copy of complaint
lodged in Police Station, copy of speaking order under
Regulation 64 along with a copy of videography of
inspection within 2 (two) days of such disconnection.
(4) No case for theft shall be booked only on account of
missing of the seals on the meter or on account of breakage
of glass window of the meter, unless dishonest intention is
corroborated by consumption pattern of consumer or any
other evidence.
Digitally
(5) Interference with the accurate registration of energy
signed by
Ashish
consumed by resorting to external methods involving
Ashish Rastogi
Rastogi Date:
remote control, high voltage injection etc., committed by
2025.07.24
16:36:13 the consumer or his employee or any other person acting
+0530Judgment 9 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahulon his behalf, shall also constitute theft of electricity which
may be established by analysis of metering data and by
testing of the meter in an accredited laboratory notified by
the Commission or by the agency authorized by the
Commission in this regard.
63. Assessment Bill for theft of electricity: -(1) The
Assessing officer shall assess the energy for theft of
electricity as notified in the Appendix I to the Regulations.
(2) The period of assessment for theft of electricity shall be
for a period of 12 (twelve) months preceding the date of
detection of theft of electricity or the exact period of theft
if determined, whichever is less: Provided further that
period of theft of electricity shall be assessed based on the
following factors: –
(i) actual period from the date of commencement of supply
to the date of inspection;
(ii) actual period from the date of replacement of
component of metering system in which the evidence is
detected to the date of inspection;
(iii) actual period from the date of preceding checking of
installation by authorized officer to date of inspection;
(iv) data recorded in the energy meter memory wherever
available;
(v) based on the document being relied upon by the
accused person.
(3) The assessment bill shall be prepared on two times the
rate as per applicable tariff.
(4) While making the assessment bill, the Licensee shall
give credit to the consumer for the electricity units already
paid by the consumer for the period of the assessment bill.
5) The assessment order shall be served upon the consumer
or the person in occupation or possession or in charge of
the place or premises, as the case may be, within 7 (seven)
days of disconnection of supply or within 2 (two) days
from the date of receipt of request of such person,
whichever is earlier.
21. As per the prosecution case, at the time of inspection, no
electricity meter was found installed in the inspected
premises and accused was indulged in direct theft of
Digitally
signed by
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi
Rastogi Date: electricity.
2025.07.24
16:36:17
+0530
Judgment 10 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahul
22. PW1 Sh. Jitender Kumar (complainant/team leader) and
PW3 Sachin Kumar (Videographer) are prime witnesses of
this case being members of inspection team. PW1
corroborated the allegations made in the complaint
(Ex.PW1/G) and deposed that at the time of inspection, no
electricity meter was found installed at the inspected
premises and that, accused who was present at the spot
was found indulged in direct theft of electricity with the
help of single core PVC insulated aluminium cable which
were found connected from distribution box of BSES YPL
installed at pole. Accused has not specifically rebutted
these facts during cross-examination of PW1. Furthermore,
PW1 has identified the accused featuring in the video
contained in the CD Ex.PW1/A and accused has not
disputed this fact at all.
23. PW1 further deposed that at the time of inspection,
accused was present at the spot and connected load was
found to the tune of 3.000 KW which was being used for
domestic purposes and the illegal wires/cable were
removed by the lineman and seized at the spot vide seizure
memo Ex.PW1/D. Again accused has not specifically
disputed these facts in the cross-examination of PW1.
24. PW3/Videographer Sh. Sachin Kumar conducted the
videography of the Inspection Proceedings in which the
commission of theft of electricity at the spot was recorded.
Digitally
PW1 & PW3 were duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel
signed by
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi
Rastogi Date:
for accused was unable to bring out any contradiction in
2025.07.24
16:36:23
+0530
Judgment 11 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahultheir testimony. Ld. Counsel for accused merely put
suggestions to witness/PW1 that accused never indulged in
theft of electricity; no inspection took place and inspection
documents were not prepared at the time of inspection
which facts have been denied by PW1. Accused has not
disputed the load report. Accused has also not disputed the
contents of inspection documents as well as of
videography contained in the CD Ex.PW1/A.
25. Nothing contradictory emerged in the testimony of
prosecution witnesses during cross-examination and the
testimony of witnesses has been consistent and thus, the
factum of inspection, preparation of documents as well as
presence of the accused at the spot and videography of
inspection proceedings done by videographer stands
proved.
26.It is further submitted on behalf of the accused that
prosecution case is highly doubtful as no public witness
was joined during the inspection of the premises. It is clear
from the prosecution witnesses that the accused was found
indulged in direct theft of electricity through illegal cable
and these facts have been well proved by PW1.
27. During evidence, CD (Ex.PW1/A) containing inspection
proceedings was played before the court which depicted
the manner in which the accused was found indulged in
direct theft of electricity through illegal wires. Accused has
Digitally
signed by
Ashish neither disputed his identity nor the identity of the
Ashish Rastogi
Rastogi Date:
2025.07.24
16:36:30
Judgment
+0530 12 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahulinspected premises featuring in the video contained in the
CD. Furthermore, it is admitted position of fact that there
was no electricity meter available at the spot at the time of
inspection.
28. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that
officials of complainant company had any animosity with
the accused and therefore, under these circumstances, non-
joining of public witness does not affect the authenticity of
the prosecution case. In this regard, this Court is supported
with the case law reported as ‘Punjab State Electricity Board
& Ors vs Ashwani Kumar, 2010 (7) SCC 569′. In this case,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following
observations:
“…..The report prepared by the officers of the
Electricity Board is an act done in discharge of their
duties and could not be straightway reflected or
disbelieved unless and until there was definite and
cogent material on record to arrive at such a finding.
The inspection report is a document prepared in
exercise of his official duty by the officers of the
corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with
law, the presumption is in favour of such act or
document and not against the same. Thus there was
specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading
proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by
the officers was not correct.”
29. In the case titled as ‘ Sushil Sharma vs BSES Rajdhani Power
Ltd.‘ in Crl. Appeal No.1060/10 decided on 22.12.2010,
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that non-
examination of independent/public witness is no infirmity
as the members of the inspection team who deposed in the
Digitally
signed by
Ashish
Ashish
Rastogi
court, were having no enmity against the appellant and
Rastogi Date:
2025.07.24
16:36:34
+0530
Judgment 13 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahultheir testimonies are trustworthy. In the present case also,
there is no material to show that the BSES officials who
inspected the premises of the accused were inimical to the
accused.
30. In addition, nothing incriminating has come on record to
show that the inspection was not conducted as per the
procedure prescribed under the DERC Regulations
pertaining to the theft of electricity. There is not even a
suggestion in the cross examination of witnesses that there
is any procedural lapse or impropriety and the guidelines
as prescribed have not been followed.
31. Once the prosecution successfully establishes the charges
against the accused regarding theft of electricity then in
view of the statutory presumption mentioned in the third
proviso of section 135 (1) of the Act it is to be presumed
that accused has committed direct theft of electricity if
accused fails to bring some evidence on record to rebut the
presumption. Thus, in view of the proviso of section 135
(1) of the Act, after the prosecution establishes the charges
of electricity theft against the accused then under the
aforesaid provisions of law, the accused is legally bound to
bring some material on record to rebut the statutory
presumption.
32. Coming to the Presumption as envisaged U/s 135 of
Electricity Act, it is to be noted that it uses the word “shall
Digitally presume”. Regarding the purport of the said expression, it
signed by
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi
Rastogi Date: Judgment
2025.07.24 14 of 18
16:36:40
+0530
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahul
has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Neeraj Dutt Vs. State, SLP(Crl.) No. 6497/2020 as under: –
“………Courts are authorized to draw a particular
inference from a particular fact, unless and until the
truth of such inference is disproved by other facts.
The court can, under Section 4 of the Evidence Act,
raise a presumption for purposes of proof of a fact.
It is well settled that a presumption is not in itself
evidence but only makes a prima facie case for a
party for whose benefit it exists. As per English
Law, there are three categories of presumptions,
namely, (i) presumptions of fact or natural
presumption; (ii) presumption of law (rebuttable and
irrebuttable); and (iii) mixed presumptions i.e.,
“presumptions of mixed law and fact” or
“presumptions of fact recognized by law”. The
expression “may presume” and “shall presume” in
Section 4 of the Evidence Act are also categories of
presumptions. Factual presumptions or discretionary
presumptions come under the division of “may
presume” while legal presumptions or compulsory
presumptions come under the division of “shall
presume”.
“May presume” leaves it to the discretion of the
court to make the presumption according to the
circumstances of the case but “shall presume” leaves
no option with the court, and it is bound to presume
the fact as proved until evidence is given to disprove
it, for instance, the genuineness of a document
purporting to be the Gazette of India. The
expression “shall presume” is found in Sections 79,
80, 81, 83, 85, 89 and 105 of the Evidence Act.”
33. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case reported as ‘2001 (6) SCC
16 titled as Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee ‘, has
laid down the law related to the rebuttal of statutory
presumption. Relevant portion of the para no.16 is
reproduced as under:-
Digitally
“…Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be
signed by conclusively established but such evidence must
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi be adduced before the court in support of the
Rastogi Date:
2025.07.24
defence that the Court must either believe the
16:36:44
+0530
Judgment 15 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahuldefence to exist or consider its existence to be
reasonably probable, the standard or
reasonability being that of the ‘prudent man’.”
34. In view of the settled law, now it is to be seen if the
accused has taken any defence to rebut the aforesaid
statutory presumption. Accused did not lead any defence
evidence nor he has brought anything on record which
could suggest that accused was drawing electricity through
authorized means or electricity meter. Moreover, it is
admitted position of fact that there was no electricity meter
for inspected premises. As per load report, certain electric
appliances were found in the inspected premises and
accused has not explained as to from where he was
drawing electricity to run those appliances. Also, it is not
the case of the accused that there was any Genset and he
was drawing energy from the same. The conduct of the
accused also fortifies the allegations of the direct theft of
electricity against him.
35.Notwithstanding, if the accused was not indulged in direct
theft of electricity or he was using the electricity through
legal sources then the easiest way to rebut the statutory
presumption for the accused was to prove on record that at
the time of inspection, he was drawing electricity through
his own electricity meter. However, accused has not
brought anything on record to disprove the allegations
brought on record by the prosecution. In view of these
discussions, it is held that accused has failed to rebut the
Digitally
signed by
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi
Rastogi Date:
2025.07.24
16:36:51
+0530
Judgment 16 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahulstatutory presumption.
36. In this regard, this court is supported by the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi reported as Mukesh Rastogi vs
North Delhi Power Limited’ 2007 (99) DRJ108. The
observations made by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi are
reproduced as under:-
“….6. The contention of the appellant is that
electricity supply was going through meter. Had
the electricity been going to the appellant’s
premises through meter, the easiest way to prove
it was by producing the electricity bills paid by
the appellant to the complainant company. The
very fact that the appellant did not prove a single
bill showing payment of electricity charges
fortifies the plea of the complainant company
that electricity was being used by the appellant
directly from LT Main by committing theft. Paid
electricity bills would have been the best
evidence to show that the appellant was using
electricity through mere. Under section 106 of
the Evidence Act, the onus was on the appellant
to produce and prove such bills paid for the use
of electricity. However, this was not even the
case of the appellant either before trial court or
in appeal that he had been using electricity
through meter and had been paying bills of
electricity as per meter. The appellant had only
taken the stand that inspection was not valid
inspection and the photographs were not proved
properly”.
37. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is held that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
that no electricity meter was available at the premises of
the accused at the time of inspection and accused Rahul
who was found indulging in direct theft of electricity
Digitally
signed by
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi
Rastogi Date:
2025.07.24 through illegal wires, which is an offence punishable U/s
16:36:55
+0530
Judgment 17 of 18
SC No.644/2021 State Vs. Rahul135 & 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Consequently,
accused Rahul is convicted U/s 135 & 138 of the
Electricity Act, 2003.
Let convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the Open Court on 24.07.2025.
(Ashish Rastogi)
Digitally
signed by Addl. Sessions Judge-05 (Electricity)
Ashish
Ashish Rastogi East/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
Rastogi Date:
2025.07.24
16:36:59
+0530Judgment 18 of 18