RFA No.153/2011 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.153/2011 % 15th March, 2011 SANTOSHI LAL ...... Appellant Through: Mr.S.Shahi, Advocate VERSUS NORTH DELHI POWER LTD.(NDPL) ...... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 3.1.2011 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for declaration and injunction was dismissed against the local power company by holding that the appellant/plaintiff was guilty of direct theft of electricity, on not one but two occasions i.e., on 23.2.2006 and on 25.2.2009. 2. With respect to the first report dated 23.2.2006, the Trial Court has noted the fact that the appellant/plaintiff in his cross examination himself admitted that he was stealing electricity by tapping the main lines. The relevant part of the impugned judgment in this regard is Para 20 which reads as under:- RFA No.153/2011 Page 2 of 3 “The plaintiff himself stepped in to the witness box as PW-1 and reiterated the position in the affidavit in evidence which is highlighted by him in the plaint. But, in the cross-examination he failed to stand the questions put to him on behalf of defendant. He admitted that it was correct that he was committing theft of electricity through illegal wire by taping NDPL L.V. main lines. He also admitted that both his electricity metres were removed after inspection dated 23.2.2006. He also admitted that a load of 6.173 kilo watt was found at his premises for industrial purpose and a load of 2.67 kilo watt was found for domestic purpose at his premises during inspection dated 23.2.2006. He also admitted that he was present in his premises during inspection on 23.2.2006.” (underlining added). 3. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff himself in his cross- examination has admitted that he had committed theft of electricity and, therefore, there cannot be any challenge to the inspection report dated 23.2.2006. So far as the second report dated 25.2.2009 is concerned, though the appellant/plaintiff disputed having committed theft of electricity, however, the Trial Court noted that not only the appellant/plaintiff admitted his signatures on the report, he also admitted his signatures on the seizure memo of illegal material being the wires etc., EX.PW1/D2. The Trial Court has also arrived at a finding of the fact that the case set up by the appellant/plaintiff for using of electricity through generator is quite clearly to be disbelieved because the appellant/plaintiff did not file any proof of either purchase or renting out of a generator or purchase of kerosene oil for allegedly running the generator. RFA No.153/2011 Page 3 of 3 4. Admittedly, there is no challenge as laid down by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the calculation of the bills on the basis of the reports. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference by this Court in appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. March 15, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ak