Burden is on prosecution to prove that electricity meter has been damaged for electricity theft: Delhi HC

Justice Navin Chawla dismissed the leave to appeal against the trial court judgment and said that it was for the petitioner to prove that the meter had been 'dishonestly' burned by the respondent.

"The petitioner having failed to prove the same, cannot shift this burden on the respondent by placing reliance on Section 106 of the Indian Electricity (IE) Act," Justice Chawla said in the judgment passed on April 16.

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Tata Power) had challenged a judgment of January 8 passed by the trial court acquitting the respondent, Amit Bansal, of an offence under Sections 135, 138 and 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

It was the case of the petitioner that on July 9, 2018, a team of the petitioner visited the premises of Bawana, Delhi. The inspecting team, during its visit, found one meter, the body of the metre box, and the resin-cast CT completely burned. The remnants of the burned parts of the LT/CT Meter were seized.

The petitioner, Tata Power, had raised a theft bill of Rs. 33,78,327 against the respondent. The said amount was revised to Rs. 26,57,771 during the proceedings before the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission.

The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence, held that the conclusion arrived in the lab report by M/s Truth Lab is based on surmises and conjectures and does not have any scientific basis.

It had held that there are inherent and apparent lacunae in the case of the petitioner, which have remained unexplained. The learned trial court held that the benefit of such lacunae has to be given to the accused. The learned Trial Court, therefore, acquitted the respondent.

The petitioner submitted that the Trial Court has erred in law and in fact in ignoring and notrelying upon the report given by M/s Truth Lab.

Petitioner's counsel submitted that in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent, Amit Bansal, said that the subject meter had burned accidentally due to a short circuit and not due to any deliberate or intentional act/commission on his part.

The counsel submitted that this being a specific defence of the respondent and these facts being in his exclusive knowledge, in terms of Sections 105 and 106 of the IndianEvidence Act, 1872. (ANI)