Raj Kumar Gupta v. Pseb and Anr

IN T

Raj Kumar Gup

Punjab State Ele

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

Res

MANDEEP PA

1.

Thi appellant/plainti

16.12.1992 pass appeal was acce were set aside, pay the disputed Brief Facts

2.

defendants from 1819/RA–3 date and for a mand running a gues Defendant No. 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

AT CHANDIG

RS

Re

Pro pta (now deceased) through his L VERSUS ectricity Board and Another ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocat spondents No.1 & 2-ex-parte. ANNU, J is Regular Second Appeal iff Raj Kumar Gupta to set asi sed by the learned Additional Di epted, the judgment and decree and the suit of the plaintiff was d amount in four monthly instalm e plaintiff filed a suit for per m recovering an amount of ed 07.09.1988 in respect of elec datory injunction to restore the st house at Bungalow No. 12 1-Punjab State Electricity Board

JAB AND HARYANA GARH SA-274-1993 (O&M) served on: 19.08.2025 onounced on: 25.08.2025 LRs .....Appellant

.....Respondents DEEP PANNU te for the appellant. has been preferred by ide the judgment and decree da istrict Judge, Firozpur, whereby dated 24.08.1991 of the trial Co dismissed while permitting him ments. rmanent injunction restraining ₹76,278/- as per memo num ctricity connection number 14–9 e supply. He averred that he w 21, Church Road, Firozpur Ca d (hereinafter referred to as, 'PSE

ated ourt m to mber 928, antt. EB)

sanctioned conn received and pa of the Board per order, including officials of the threat, procured disconnection w Indian Electricit illegal, arbitrary

3.

stood in the nam the seals as genu the specimen of the flying squad the meter on 06 finding in the e fake seals, bro defendants alleg meter cover an executed an und the amount asse was calculated b of ₹76,278 was notice was requ restored upon fu nection number 14–928 in his aid. The last bill for ₹1,628/- wa riodically checked the installatio g during inspection on 23.08.19 Board accompanied by police d d certain writings and his sign without giving seven days' notice ty Act, 1910 and that the impug y and unsupported by particulars. e defendants filed a written state me of the plaintiff but denying th uine. They pleaded that the Sub f M&T seals which are kept con d. The Assistant Executive Engi

6.09.1988 and found the M&T enforcement checking register, r oke the seals, and packed the ged that there was dishonest ab nd reversing the meter. It was dertaking admitting that he was essed, and undertook not to app by taking 2244 units monthly as raised with intimation to the p uired where theft was detected ull payment.

s name. The bills were regula as paid on 16.08.1988. The offic on and seals and found them to be

¶988However, on 07.09.1988, disconnected the supply and, un natures. The plaintiff pleaded t e was contrary to Section 24 of gned memo claiming ₹76,278/- w . ement admitting that the connect hat their routine checks establish Divisional Officer does not poss nfidential in the laboratory and w ineer of the flying squad inspec seals to be fake. He recorded t removed the meter along with meter in a cardboard box. T straction of energy by opening further pleaded that the plain a first-time offender, agreed to p proach the civil court. The amo per PSEB instructions and dema police. It was asserted that no pr d and that supply would only

arly ials e in nder that tion hed sess with cted this ntiff pay ount rior

4.

1. OP

¶22-A me

3.

5.

Findings of the

6.

On had failed to p energy. Accordi from recovering of connection el restoration of su Findings of the

7.

On Firozpur, allowe the suit. The pla equal monthly i default. Submissions of

8.

Lea was never sent t essential step in e trial Court framed the followin Whether the plaintiff is entit PP Whether the suit is not maint A Whether the plaintiff commi ntioned in the written statement? Relief. e parties led their respective evid e Trial Court n appreciation of evidence, the t prove that the plaintiff was fou ingly, the trial Court decreed th g ₹76,278 under memo No.1819 lectric number 14–928, and gran upply. e First Appellate Court n appeal by the defendants, the ed the appeal, set aside the decr aintiff, however, was permitted instalments, with liberty to the f Counsel for the appellant arned counsel for the appellant/ to the Meter Examination Labora n proving theft. The defendants

ng issues:- tled to the injunction as prayed f tainable? OPD itted theft of energy in the man ? OPD dence. trial Court held that the defenda und committing theft of electri the suit, restraining the defenda /RA-3, dated 07.09.1988 in resp nted mandatory injunction direct learned Additional District Jud ree of the trial Court and dismis to pay the disputed amount in f Board to disconnect the supply /plaintiff contended that the ma atory for verification, which was themselves admitted that the se

for? nner ants ical ants pect ting dge, ssed four y on atter s an

were checked a produced to pro that the alleged which is unrelia plaintiff was sta binding effect. I the onus of Issu energy lay squar

9.

De respondents/def Findings

10.

I h examined the re

11.

All strictly proved b i.e "Whether th the written state

12.

the allegations o seals affixed to reverse the read with the seals, e Laboratory. How seals were seale exhibited and n about fifteen days earlier and w ove that the SDO could not che detection by the flying squad w able without laboratory verificati ated to have been procured und It was further argued that the low ue No. 2A onto the plaintiff, wh rely on the defendants. spite service, none app fendants to contest the present ap ave heard learned counsel for t ecord. legations of theft of energy are q by the party who asserts them. T he plaintiff committed theft of e ement?", was upon the defendant e respondents/defendants have n of theft. The case of the respon o the meter were fake and that dings. In such circumstances, the examined and reported upon by wever, the respondents/defendan ed, preserved and sent to the lab no competent witness from the l

were found in order. No rule w eck the seals. It was further argu was based only on visual inspecti ion. The alleged undertaking of der coercion and therefore had wer appellate court wrongly shif hereas the burden to prove theft peared on behalf of ppeal. the appellant/plaintiff and carefu quasi-criminal in nature and must The burden to prove Issue No. 2 energy in the manner mentioned ts. not led sufficient evidence to pro ndents/defendants is that the M t the meter was tampered with e best evidence was the meter it y the authorised Meter Examinat nts did not prove that the meter a boratory. No laboratory report w laboratory was examined. The p

ued ion, fted ft of ully t be 2A, d in ove &T h to self tion

that the flying verification, par confidential seal

13.

Fur enforcement ch further weakens

14.

said to have bee such an underta was only for the the assessed am undertaking can theft. The lower to prove that he

15.

It i inferred from su bound to establi the absence of a technical witnes that the plaintiff that the defend findings of the l electricity, are w

squad made field detection by rticularly when the Board itsel l specimens. rther, the respondents/defend hecking register or proved it t s their defence. e respondents/defendants also re en obtained from the plaintiff at aking was executed, as per the ca e purpose of compounding the a mount in order to avoid discon nnot absolve the defendants of th r appellate court's approach in sh did not steal energy is contrary t is well settled that allegations uspicion or presumption alone. ish such allegations by clear, co any laboratory test, documentary ss, the mere ipse dixit of the insp f committed theft of energy. The dants had failed to discharge t learned lower Appellate Court t without any basis.

naked eye cannot replace foren lf claims exclusive custody of dants have not produced through its author. This omiss elied upon the alleged undertak t the time of disconnection. Even ase of the defendants themselves alleged offence and agreeing to p nnection. In a civil suit, such heir duty to prove the allegations hifting the burden onto the plain to settled principles of law. of theft of electricity cannot . The respondents/defendants w ogent and convincing evidence. y proof or testimony of a compet pecting squad is insufficient to h e trial Court was correct in hold their burden. On the other ha that the plaintiff committed theft

nsic sion king n if s, it pay an s of ntiff be were In tent hold ding and,

Conclusion

16.

In opinion that the Court had rightl theft of electrica passed by the le the decree of th allowed.

17.

Pen

August 25, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

view of the foregoing discussio e findings of the lower appellate ly decreed the suit by holding th al energy. Consequently, the judg earned Additional District Judge e trial Court dated 24.08.1991 is nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

on, this Court is of the conside e court are unsustainable. The t hat the defendants failed to establ gment and decree dated 16.12.19 e, Firozpur, is hereby set aside, a s upheld. The appeal is accordin stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

ered trial lish