Raj Kumar Gupta Vs Pseb and Anr.

Th i s Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaint i ff Raj Kumar Gupta to set as i de the judgment and decree d a ted 16.12.1992 pas s ed by the learned Additional D i strict Judge, Firozpur, whereby the appeal was acc e pted, the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1991 of the trial C o urt were set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed while permitting hi m to pay the dispute d amount in four monthly instal m ents.

¶14

Brief Facts

¶15

Th e plaintiff filed a suit for pe r manent injunction restraining the defendants fro m recovering an amount of ₹76,278/- as per memo nu m ber 1819/RA–3 dat e d 07.09.1988 in respect of ele c tricity connection number 14– 9 28, and for a man d atory injunction to restore th e supply. He averred that he w as running a gue s t house at Bungalow No. 1 2 1, Church Road, Firozpur C a ntt. Defendant No. 1 -Punjab State Electricity Boar d (hereinafter referred to as, ‘PS E B)

¶16

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

RSA-274-1993 (O&M) - 2-

¶18

sanctioned con n ection number 14–928 in hi s name. The bills were regul a rly received and p a id. The last bill for ₹1,628/- w a s paid on 16.08.1988. The officials of the Board pe r iodically checked the installati o n and seals and found them to b e in order, includin g during inspection on 23.08.1 9 88. However, on 07.09.1988, the officials of the Board accompanied by police d isconnected the supply and, u n der threat, procure d certain writings and his sig n atures. The plaintiff pleaded t hat disconnection w ithout giving seven days’ notic e was contrary to Section 24 of the Indian Electrici t y Act, 1910 and that the impu g ned memo claiming ₹76,278/- w as illegal, arbitrar y and unsupported by particulars . 3. Th e defendants filed a written stat e ment admitting that the connec t ion stood in the na m e of the plaintiff but denying t h at their routine checks establis h ed the seals as gen u ine. They pleaded that the Sub Divisional Officer does not pos s ess the specimen o f M&T seals which are kept co n fidential in the laboratory and w ith the flying squa d . The Assistant Executive Eng i neer of the flying squad inspe c ted the meter on 0 6 .09.1988 and found the M&T seals to be fake. He recorded t his finding in the e nforcement checking register, r emoved the meter along with the fake seals, br o ke the seals, and packed the meter in a cardboard box. T he defendants alle g ed that there was dishonest abstraction of energy by opening the meter cover a n d reversing the meter. It was further pleaded that the plai n tiff executed an un d ertaking admitting that he was a first-time offender, agreed to p ay the amount ass e ssed, and undertook not to ap p roach the civil court. The am o unt was calculated b y taking 2244 units monthly as per PSEB instructions and dem a nd of ₹76,278 was raised with intimation to the p olice. It was asserted that no p r ior notice was req u ired where theft was detecte d and that supply would only be TRIPTI SAINIrestored upon f u ll payment. 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA-274-1993 (O&M) - 3-

¶20

Th e trial Court framed the followi n g issues:-

¶21

Whether the plaintiff is enti t led to the injunction as prayed f or? O P P

¶22

Whether the suit is not main t ainable? OPD

¶23

2- A Whether the plaintiff comm i tted theft of energy in the ma n ner mentioned in the written statement ? OPD

¶24

Relief.

¶25

Th e parties led their respective evi d ence.

¶26

Findings of the Trial Court

¶27

O n appreciation of evidence, the t rial Court held that the defend a nts had failed to p rove that the plaintiff was fo u nd committing theft of electr i cal energy. Accord i ngly, the trial Court decreed th e suit, restraining the defend a nts from recoverin g ₹76,278 under memo No.1819/RA-3, dated 07.09.1988 in res p ect of connection e l ectric number 14–928, and gra n ted mandatory injunction direc t ing restoration of s u pply.

¶28

Findings of the First Appellate Court

¶29

O n appeal by the defendants, the learned Additional District Ju d ge, Firozpur, allow e d the appeal, set aside the dec r ee of the trial Court and dismi s sed the suit. The pl a intiff, however, was permitted to pay the disputed amount in f our equal monthly i nstalments, with liberty to the Board to disconnect the suppl y on default.

¶30

Submissions of Counsel for the appellant

¶31

Le a rned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff contended that the m a tter was never sent t o the Meter Examination Labor a tory for verification, which wa s an TRIPTI SAINIessential step i n proving theft. The defendants themselves admitted that the s e als 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

RSA-274-1993 (O&M) - 4-

¶33

were checked a bout fifteen days earlier and w ere found in order. No rule w as produced to pr o ve that the SDO could not ch e ck the seals. It was further arg u ed that the alleged detection by the flying squad w as based only on visual inspect i on, which is unreli a ble without laboratory verificat i on. The alleged undertaking of the plaintiff was st a ted to have been procured un d er coercion and therefore had no binding effect. I t was further argued that the lo w er appellate court wrongly shi f ted the onus of Iss u e No. 2A onto the plaintiff, w h ereas the burden to prove the ft of energy lay squa r ely on the defendants.

¶34

Despite service, none ap p eared on behalf of the respondents/de f endants to contest the present a p peal.

¶35

Findings

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for t he appellant/plaintiff and caref u lly examined the r e cord. 11. Al l egations of theft of energy are q uasi-criminal in nature and mus t be strictly proved b y the party who asserts them. T he burden to prove Issue No. 2 A, i.e “Whether t h e plaintiff committed theft of e nergy in the manner mentione d in the written stat e ment?”, was upon the defendan t s.

¶37

Th e respondents/defendants have n ot led sufficient evidence to pr o ve the allegations o f theft. The case of the respo n dents/defendants is that the M&T seals affixed t o the meter were fake and tha t the meter was tampered wit h to reverse the rea d ings. In such circumstances, th e best evidence was the meter itself with the seals, e xamined and reported upon b y the authorised Meter Examina t ion Laboratory. Ho w ever, the respondents/defenda n ts did not prove that the meter a nd seals were seal e d, preserved and sent to the la b oratory. No laboratory report w as TRIPTI SAINIexhibited and n o competent witness from the l aboratory was examined. The p lea 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

RSA-274-1993 (O&M) - 5-

¶39

that the flying squad made field detection by naked eye cannot replace fore n sic verification, pa r ticularly when the Board itse l f claims exclusive custody of the confidential sea l specimens. 13. Fu r ther, the respondents/defen d ants have not produced the enforcement c h ecking register or proved it t hrough its author. This omis s ion further weaken s their defence. 14. Th e respondents/defendants also r e lied upon the alleged underta k ing said to have be e n obtained from the plaintiff a t the time of disconnection. Eve n if such an undert a king was executed, as per the c a se of the defendants themselve s , it was only for th e purpose of compounding the a lleged offence and agreeing to p ay the assessed a m ount in order to avoid disco n nection. In a civil suit, such an undertaking ca n not absolve the defendants of t h eir duty to prove the allegation s of theft. The lowe r appellate court’s approach in s h ifting the burden onto the plai n tiff to prove that he did not steal energy is contrary t o settled principles of law. 15. It i s well settled that allegations of theft of electricity cannot be inferred from s u spicion or presumption alone . The respondents/defendants w ere bound to establ i sh such allegations by clear, c o gent and convincing evidence. In the absence of a ny laboratory test, documentar y proof or testimony of a compe t ent technical witne s s, the mere ipse dixit of the ins p ecting squad is insufficient to h old that the plaintif f committed theft of energy. Th e trial Court was correct in hol d ing that the defen d ants had failed to discharge t heir burden. On the other h a nd, findings of the l earned lower Appellate Court t hat the plaintiff committed the ft of electricity, are w ithout any basis.

¶40

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

RSA-274-1993 (O&M) - 6-

¶42

Conclusion

¶43

In view of the foregoing discussi o n, this Court is of the consid e red opinion that th e findings of the lower appellat e court are unsustainable. The t rial Court had right l y decreed the suit by holding t h at the defendants failed to estab l ish theft of electric a l energy. Consequently, the jud g ment and decree dated 16.12.1 9 92 passed by the l e arned Additional District Judg e , Firozpur, is hereby set aside, a nd the decree of the trial Court dated 24.08.1991 i s upheld. The appeal is accordi n gly allowed.

¶44

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶45

August 25, 202 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶46

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Raj Kumar Gupta v. Pseb and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

Raj Kumar Gupta v. Pseb and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakma Vs Banta Deceased through Lrs.

Baldev Singh @ Jassa Singh Vs Gurwinder Singh

Dilbag Rai Bhalla Vs Parminder Kaur and Anr.

Virender Kumar Sethi and Anr. Vs Rajan Duggal through Lrs

Ram Chander Vs Dharambir

Kanwalkant & Anrs. Vs Bhagwan Kaur & Ors.