An owner challenged conviction for electricity theft by his tenants. The court held owners constitute 'consumers' and are liable. Appeals dismissed.
The appeals were dismissed; the trial court records were sent back.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
+ Crl. Appeal No. 470/2011 & Crl.M.B. 624/2011
% Reserved on: 9th November, 2011 Decided on: 3rd January, 2012
LOKESH CHANDELA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S. Satyanarayana, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State. Mr. Sunil Fernandes Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Pathak, Adv. For BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd./R-2.
+ Crl. Appeal No. 471/2011 & Crl.M.B. 625/2011
LOKESH CHANDELA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S. Satyanarayana, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State. Mr. Sunil Fernandes Standing Counsel with Mr. Deepak Pathak, Adv. For BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd./R-2.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
Crl. Appeal Nos. 470 & 471/2011 Page 1 of 7
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.
Crl. Appeal Nos. 470 & 471/2011 Page 2 of 7
Crl. Appeal Nos. 470 & 471/2011 Page 3 of 7
Appellant was convicted for offence under Section 135 read with 150 of the Act and directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 18 months and fine of Rs. 23,50,137/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months and out of the fine amount if realized Rs. 15,66,758/- was to be given to the Respondent towards civil liability. In complaint case No. 186/2007 by the impugned orders dated 25th February and 28th February, 2011 the Appellant was convicted for offence under Section 135 read with 150 of the Act and directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 18 months and a fine of Rs. 34,28,161/-. Further in default of payment of fine the Appellant has been directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months and out of the fine amount if realized, amount of Rs. 22,85,440/- was directed to be paid as civil liability towards the Respondent. Since the two complaint cases arose from a common inspection, the sentences of the Appellant were directed to run concurrently.
Crl. Appeal Nos. 470 & 471/2011 Page 4 of 7
floor. Further the Police staff had also to be called due to the mob gathering there. The connected load was found to be about 72 KW on the first floor and about 52 KW on the second floor. The inspection report, meter detail report, load report and seizure memo were exhibited as Ex.CW-2/A, Ex.CW2/B, Ex.PW-2/C and Ex.CW-2/D respectively. The photographs also shows that industrial work was going on by resorting to direct connections.
Crl. Appeal Nos. 470 & 471/2011 Page 5 of 7
that the Appellant was not the user and even if the users were Rajiv and Pawan respectively, the Appellant has been convicted with the aid of Section 150 of the Act in view of the allegations of abetment of offence. It would be relevant to note the definition of the word ‘consumer’ under Section 2(15) of the Act which states that:
2(15) "consumer" means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;
A reading of Section 2(15) with Section 135 of the Act shows that both the user and the owner of the premises fall under the definition of the consumer and are thus liable to be punished, if illegal abstraction of energy is found at the premises.
Crl. Appeal Nos. 470 & 471/2011 Page 6 of 7
the Appellant, though he has been granted benefit of doubt in complaint case No. 313/2006. Since this is the second and third conviction of the Appellant, in view of Section 135 of the Act the minimum sentence to be prescribed to the Appellant is for imprisonment for a period of 6 months which may extend up to 5 years. Considering the fact that the Appellant is repeatedly indulging in theft of electricity, in the earlier instance being found as a user and in the present case taking the plea of being the owner and abetting the running of industrial units where electricity is used as one of the essential ingredients, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 28th February, 2011 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge directing the Appellant to undergo the sentences and pay the fine as stated above.
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE
JANUARY 03, 2012 ‘ga’
Crl. Appeal Nos. 470 & 471/2011 Page
7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an owner of premises can be held liable for theft of electricity when the tenant is the user.
Whether non-intimation of Lok Adalat proceedings regarding settlement by tenants vitiates the criminal trial.
Whether the quantum of sentence awarded is appropriate given the Appellant's prior convictions.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
LOKESH CHANDELA
STATE NCT OF DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
