How to appreciate evidence in case of theft of electricity?

How to appreciate evidence in case of theft of electricity?

 From the aforesaid facts, it can be noticed that theft of electricity has been presumed solely on the basis of availability of cut in the incoming PVC of the house of the neighbour. The incoming PVC of the house of the neighbour happens to pass near to the Chhajja of the house of the plaintiff. No pilferage of the electricity was found at the spot either on 04.06.2017 or on 05.06.2017. In the LLI report dated 04.06.2017, blinking of the meter was found to be stopped, but in LLI report dated 05.06.2017, no such feature was noticed by the inspecting team. The blinking and non-blinking of the meter was directly proportional to the stoppage of supply by the consumer herself in her house. The said event can happen in case of no supply from the department and the supply is being generated through the mechanism of genset. In such eventuality, blinking of the meter would stop. This fact has been admitted by DW 1 Mandeep Sidhu, SDO Vigilance when he was cross-examined on 16.03.2018.

10. From the testimonies of DW 1 and DW 2, positive fact has come to fore that the witnesses have not verified that the running of electricity in the house of the plaintiff was only on account of electricity supply of department and not on account of operation of genset and inverter in the house of the plaintiff. Non-blinking of the meter cannot be attributed to commission of theft alone, rather the same can happen during the course of supply through genset/inverter when electricity supply is off.

11. Admittedly, the raiding team has not removed the meter for any lab checking. The checking report in the context of instruction No. 9 issued by the department cannot be held to be legal inasmuch as that defendant was legally required to make video-graphy of the events dated 04.06.2007 and 05.06.2017. As per instruction No. 9, pertaining to procedure for inspection of premises, detection of theft of electricity and framing a case for theft of electricity, video-graphy/recording of all the events in a digital camera is required as an essential feature for ready reference of such event. The aforesaid instruction No. 9 has been issued by the department for dealing with the cases of theft of electricity and the instruction prescribes that the investigating officer/officials shall take along with them the digital camera/video or any other recording devise preferably having the facility of date and time stamp for recording the complete events during the course of checking of the premises. While inspecting and checking the premises, the raiding party should record whole event after reaching the premises upto leaving the premises through video-graphy in the camera/digital camera. The authorized inspecting officer shall keep one CD with him and hand over one CD to assessing officer.

12. Admittedly, the aforesaid exercise has not been done. In a case of similar violation, the High Court in CWP No. 9582 of 2013 titled D.H.B.V.N.L. v. Permanent Lok Adalat and another decided on 01.04.2014 has observed that noncompliance of aforesaid instruction(s) would entail in disbelieving the stand of the department.

13. In view of admitted facts on record, it is found that the defendant has drawn conjecture against the plaintiff solely on the ground of availability of cut tapped with cello tape in the incoming PVC of the house of the neighbour that happens to pass near to the chhajja of the house of the plaintiff. No other evidence has been collected to show any pilferage at the instance of the plaintiff through the cut in the incoming PVC of the house of the neighbour. No complaint was ever made by the neighbour. No action has been taken against the consumer of incoming PVC where the cut was detected by the investigating team. The case of theft has to be decided on the basis of proving guilt of the accused/consumer to the hilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

Legallites Law Firm

8851250058