LOKESH CHANDELA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these appeals the Appellant lays a challenge to the impugned judgment dated 25 th and 28 th February, 2011 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 135 read with Section 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short the Act ), arising out of complaint case Nos. 185/2007 and 186/2007. Both the appeals are being dealt with together as the facts and legal issues are common and the only difference is that in criminal complaint case No. 185/2007 the Appellant s tenant was one Rajiv who was the co-accused and a proclaimed offender and in complaint case No. 186/2007 the tenant was Pawan, the co-accused and a proclaimed offender.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the Appellant was not the user of electricity and has been prosecuted only for the reason that he is the owner of the premises. The Appellant had examined himself as DW-1 and exhibited the rent agreements with the co-accused persons which clearly provided that no electricity connection would be provided for the said premises and in case of any electricity requirement, the tenant would use a generator set of his own. The Appellant was not found at the spot at the time of inspection. Merely by letting out the premises, the Appellant cannot be held vicariously liable and to have abetted the commission of offence. The Appellant was unaware of the acts of his tenants. Further both his tenants Rajiv and Pawan entered into settlement before the Permanent Lok Adalat, however did not honour the settlement and absconded. No notice of the Lok Adalat proceedings was given to the Appellant and he was not informed thereof even by the co-accused persons. Thus, the appeals be allowed and the Appellant be acquitted of the offences alleged. In the alternative the sentence awarded to the Appellant being harsh requires to be modified to the period undergone. The civil liability imposed on the Appellant is onerous and beyond his capacity to fulfill and hence the same be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on the other hand contends that the Appellant has himself admitted to be the owner of the said premises where inspection was carried out and on inspection it was found that direct theft of electricity was going on. The Appellant has been convicted on the basis of cogent and convincing evidence led by the Respondent in the form of witnesses who conducted the raid, the photographs taken and the material seized from the spot. The Appellant has earlier been convicted for offence under Section 135 of the Act and since this is a subsequent conviction, no leniency can be shown. The appeals, thus, deserve to be dismissed.