MUKESH RASTOGI Vs. NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Special Electricity Court, Rohini dated 8th August, 2007 and order on sentence of the same day whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 135 and 138 of Electricity Act and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for period of one year and civil liability of the appellant was fixed under Section 154 (V) of Electricity Act to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-

(2.) The appellant challenged the order of the Trial Court on the ground that the officials, who inspected the premises of the appellant on 21st December, 2004 were not the Officers duly authorized by the State Government under Section 135(2) of the Electricity Act. The Government of NCT had issued a notification dated 15th March, 2004 whereby the officers of the rank of Manager and above were designated as authorized Officers for inspection. Since the Inspection Report dated 21.12.2004 shows that none of the officers, who inspected the premises was of the rank above Manager, the inspection was illegal and conviction based on this inspection was illegal. The second ground taken is that the complainant company i.e. NDPL had not followed the provisions of Cr.P.C. relating to search and seizure so much so that the case property which was brought before the Court was not in a sealed pullanda and the pullanda was not bearing the details in respect of the seizure nor it was having the seal of the Officer. The seizure memo Ex. CW-2/D did not mention about the sealing of the property. The third ground taken is that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that description of material used for stealing electricity was different from the case property produced before the Court and that the size, colour and description of the wires allegedly sealed from the property, in question, was not mentioned in the seizure memo. The cut-outs allegedly installed before the meter were neither seized nor brought before the Court. The allegation that the load was running directly through the cut out fuses installed before the meter and illegal wires were directly attached to the meter was not proved beyond reasonable doubt without the seizure of the alleged cut outs. The judgment is also challenged on the ground that the photographs of the premises of the appellant taken by CW/4 were not placed on record till CW 4 was examined and the name of CW-4 Mr. B.P.Navani was not cited in the list of witnesses.

(3.) A perusal of the complaint and evidence would show that the premises No. K-1410 Jahangir Puri belonging to the appellant was inspected by the enforcement staff of the NDPL on 21st December, 2004 At the time of inspection, it was found that the electricity was being tapped by connecting wires directly to the LT Main running near the roof of house, parallel to the row of buildings. Tapping of electricity could be seen standing outside the buildings since wires going from LT Main to the building through a window could be seen. The photographs of the spot were taken by the photographer showing wires going from LT Main to the window, from window to meter place then to cut out and from cut out to the house and business place of the appellant. The appellant was residing at first floor and his business was at ground floor. The visit of the enforcement staff is proved by the defence witnesses themselves, who stated that persons from electricity department did come on that day and the appellant was at the spot at that time. At the time of taking photographs of the premises of appellant showing wires from LT Main going into the house of the appellant, the NDPL department mentioned date of inspection, K. Number, Meter Number, address and the name of the appellant on a paper poster and held it before the place where wires from LT Main were reaching to the cut outs and took photograph showing direct supply of electricity to the premises of the appellant. Although the appellant has denied that any photograph was taken or photograph belonged to his house, the appellant has not denied either the premises Number or K. Number or the Meter Number or date of inspection mentioned in this paper poster showing his name as the user. It is his own case that members of NDPL visited the house on that day thus, the inspection of the premises by enforcement staff of the NDPL and the photographs showing his premises cannot be doubted.