Bses Yamuna Power Limited v. Dinesh Pandey & ANR

$~16 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.L.P. 215/2016 BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Prashant Jain, Adv.

versus DINESH PANDEY & ANR.

..... Respondents Through :Ms. Aanchal Dhingra and Mr. S.N.

Tripathi, Advs. for respondent no. 1 Mr.

Amit Chadha, APP with SI Omveer Singh, P.S. Nand Nagri for respondent no. 2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 12.01.2017 Crl. M.A. no. 6471/2016 (for condonation of delay) Delay of 12 days in re-filing is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 215/2016 Petitioner has prayed for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondent no. 1 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("the Act", for short) by the trial court, vide judgment dated 17th December, 2015. Trial court has concluded that petitioner had failed to prove the guilt of the respondent no. 1 beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts. Petitioner had

failed to prove that it is the respondent no. 1, who had committed the theft of electricity.

As per the petitioner, on 31st July, 2006 first floor of the property no. D-274, School Block, Nathu Colony, Delhi was inspected by the Joint Inspecting Team of the petitioner, when respondent no. 1 was found indulging in the direct theft of electricity by tapping the BSES LV mains for running a super enamel plant. As per the petitioner, respondent no.1 was using the electricity for industrial purpose. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, trial court has concluded that petitioner had failed to prove that respondent no. 1 was the occupier of the first floor and was using the electricity for running an industry by tapping the LV mains.

For arriving at this conclusion, trial court has considered the rent agreement Ex. PW4/A produced and proved by the landlord of respondent no.1, which clearly indicated that respondent no. 1 was a tenant in respect of only one room at the ground floor of the property. PW4 Shri Jagbir Singh is the husband of the owner of the property bearing no. D-274, School Block, Nathu Colony, Delhi. He has deposed that he had let out the ground floor of the property to respondent no. 1 vide rent agreement Ex. PW4/A. PW6 Smt. Chandra Kala is the owner and in her

cross-examination, she has deposed that her husband (PW4) used to look after the said property. He used to attend to all the paper work, connected with the management and affairs of her property. Petitioner has not led any documentary evidence to indicate that respondent no. 1 was the occupier of the first floor and was running the alleged industry.

On the contrary, respondent no. 1 had succeeded in establishing that he was the tenant in respect of a room at the ground floor. Admittedly, ground floor was not inspected nor is it a case of petitioner that direct tapping of electricity was done by the occupier of the ground floor. The view taken by the trial court is a possible view on the evidence led by the parties. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment. For the foregoing reasons, in my view, petitioner has failed to make out a case for the grant of leave to appeal to him. Petition is dismissed.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

JANUARY 12, 2017 rb