CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA, AND OTHERS Vs. OSWAL WOOLEN MILLS LIMITED, G T ROAD, LUDHIANA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal:-

(2.) The suit was instituted by the consumer of the Electricity Board contending that the penalty levied and the disconnection effected were against law and that no opportunity had been given to the plaintiff to show that there had been no tampering of the meter terminal nor was there any wrongful extraction of electricity. The defendant sought to only rely upon his official witnesses to contend that they had actually carried out surprise inspection and they found that there had been a willful tampering of the meter and the plaintiff had deliberately caused misuse of energy and made through such tampering an improper reading to be recorded to its own benefit. The trial Court and the appellate Court decreed the suit on a finding that the defendant had not established the theft of energy or tampering of the meter in the manner sought to be relied upon by the Electricity Board.

(3.) The Electricity Act, 1910 sets out through Section 39 the component of theft of energy resulting in wrongful extraction of electricity and makes a person guilty of such act liable both criminally as well as through a civil liability involving imposition and recovery of the electricity charges and penalty. Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910 reads thus:-