RSA-274-1993 203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Raj Kumar Gupta (now deceased) Punjab State Electricity Board and Another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal Respondent MANDEEP PANNU, J 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff Raj Kumar Gupta to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Firozpur, whereby the appeal was accepted, the judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed while permitting him to pay the disputed am Brief Facts 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering an amount of 1819/RA–3 dated and for a mandatory injunction to restore the supply. He averred that he was running a guest house at Bungalow No. 121, Church Road, Defendant No. 1 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Reserved on: Pronounced on Raj Kumar Gupta (now deceased) through his LRs VERSUS Punjab State Electricity Board and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Respondents No.1 & 2- ex-parte. MANDEEP PANNU, J This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff Raj Kumar Gupta to set aside the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Firozpur, whereby the appeal was accepted, the judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed while permitting him to pay the disputed amount in four monthly instalments. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering an amount of 3 dated 07.09.1988 in respect of electricity connection numbe and for a mandatory injunction to restore the supply. He averred that he was running a guest house at Bungalow No. 121, Church Road, Defendant No. 1-Punjab State Electricity Board -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-274-1993 (O&M) Reserved on: 19.08.2025 Pronounced on: 25.08.2025 through his LRs .....Appellant .....Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the appellant. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff Raj Kumar Gupta to set aside the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Firozpur, whereby the appeal was accepted, the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1991 of the trial Court were set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed while permitting him to ount in four monthly instalments. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering an amount of ₹76,278/- as per memo number in respect of electricity connection number 14–928, and for a mandatory injunction to restore the supply. He averred that he was running a guest house at Bungalow No. 121, Church Road, Firozpur Cantt. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as, ‘PSEB) This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff Raj Kumar Gupta to set aside the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Firozpur, whereby the of the trial Court were set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed while permitting him to The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the as per memo number 928, and for a mandatory injunction to restore the supply. He averred that he was Firozpur Cantt. (hereinafter referred to as, ‘PSEB) TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-274-1993 sanctioned connection number 14 received and paid. The last bill for of the Board periodically checked the installation and seals and found them to be in order, including during ins officials of the Board accompanied by police disconnected the supply and, under threat, procured certain writings and his signatures. The plaintiff pleaded that disconnection without giving seven days’ not Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that the impugned memo claiming illegal, arbitrary and unsupported by particulars. 3. The defendants filed a written statement admitting that the connection stood in the name of the plaintiff but denying that their routine checks established the seals as genuine. They pleaded that the Sub Divisional Officer does not possess the specimen of the flying squad. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the flying squad inspected the meter on 06.09. finding in the enforcement checki fake seals, broke the seals, and packed the meter in a cardboard box. The defendants alleged that there was dishonest abstraction of energy by opening the meter cover and reversing the meter. It was further ple executed an undertaking admitting that he was a first the amount assessed, and undertook not to approach the civil court. The amount was calculated by taking 2244 units monthly as per PSEB instructions a of ₹76,278 was raised with intimation to the police. It was asserted that no prior notice was required where theft was detected and that supply would only be restored upon full payment. (O&M) nection number 14–928 in his name. The bills were regularly received and paid. The last bill for ₹1,628/- was paid on of the Board periodically checked the installation and seals and found them to be in order, including during inspection on 23.08.1988. However, on officials of the Board accompanied by police disconnected the supply and, under threat, procured certain writings and his signatures. The plaintiff pleaded that disconnection without giving seven days’ notice was contrary to Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that the impugned memo claiming illegal, arbitrary and unsupported by particulars. The defendants filed a written statement admitting that the connection stood in the name of the plaintiff but denying that their routine checks established the seals as genuine. They pleaded that the Sub Divisional Officer does not possess the specimen of M&T seals which are kept confidential in the laboratory and with the flying squad. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the flying squad inspected 06.09.1988 and found the M&T seals to be fake. He recorded this finding in the enforcement checking register, removed the meter along with the fake seals, broke the seals, and packed the meter in a cardboard box. The defendants alleged that there was dishonest abstraction of energy by opening the meter cover and reversing the meter. It was further ple executed an undertaking admitting that he was a first the amount assessed, and undertook not to approach the civil court. The amount was calculated by taking 2244 units monthly as per PSEB instructions a ₹76,278 was raised with intimation to the police. It was asserted that no prior notice was required where theft was detected and that supply would only be restored upon full payment. -2- 928 in his name. The bills were regularly was paid on 16.08.1988. The officials of the Board periodically checked the installation and seals and found them to be in 1988. However, on 07.09.1988, the officials of the Board accompanied by police disconnected the supply and, under threat, procured certain writings and his signatures. The plaintiff pleaded that ice was contrary to Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that the impugned memo claiming ₹76,278/- was illegal, arbitrary and unsupported by particulars. The defendants filed a written statement admitting that the connection stood in the name of the plaintiff but denying that their routine checks established the seals as genuine. They pleaded that the Sub Divisional Officer does not possess M&T seals which are kept confidential in the laboratory and with the flying squad. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the flying squad inspected 1988 and found the M&T seals to be fake. He recorded this ng register, removed the meter along with the fake seals, broke the seals, and packed the meter in a cardboard box. The defendants alleged that there was dishonest abstraction of energy by opening the meter cover and reversing the meter. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff executed an undertaking admitting that he was a first-time offender, agreed to pay the amount assessed, and undertook not to approach the civil court. The amount was calculated by taking 2244 units monthly as per PSEB instructions and demand ₹76,278 was raised with intimation to the police. It was asserted that no prior notice was required where theft was detected and that supply would only be 928 in his name. The bills were regularly 1988. The officials of the Board periodically checked the installation and seals and found them to be in 1988, the officials of the Board accompanied by police disconnected the supply and, under threat, procured certain writings and his signatures. The plaintiff pleaded that ice was contrary to Section 24 of the was The defendants filed a written statement admitting that the connection stood in the name of the plaintiff but denying that their routine checks established the seals as genuine. They pleaded that the Sub Divisional Officer does not possess M&T seals which are kept confidential in the laboratory and with the flying squad. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the flying squad inspected 1988 and found the M&T seals to be fake. He recorded this ng register, removed the meter along with the fake seals, broke the seals, and packed the meter in a cardboard box. The defendants alleged that there was dishonest abstraction of energy by opening the aded that the plaintiff time offender, agreed to pay the amount assessed, and undertook not to approach the civil court. The amount nd demand ₹76,278 was raised with intimation to the police. It was asserted that no prior notice was required where theft was detected and that supply would only be TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-274-1993 4. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. OPP 2. 2-A mentioned in the written statement? OPD 3. 5. The parties led their re Findings of the Trial Court 6. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove that the plaintiff was found committing theft of electrical energy. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit, restraining the defendants from recovering of connection electric restoration of supply. Findings of the First Appellate Court 7. On appeal by the defendants, the learned Additional Distr Firozpur, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff, however, was permitted to pay the disputed amount in four equal monthly instalments, with liberty to the Board to disconnect the supply default. Submissions of Counsel for the 8. Learned counsel for the appellant was never sent to the Meter Examination Laboratory for verification, which was an essential step in proving theft. The defendants (O&M) The trial Court framed the following issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD A Whether the plaintiff committed theft of energy in the manner mentioned in the written statement? OPD Relief. The parties led their respective evidence. indings of the Trial Court On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove that the plaintiff was found committing theft of electrical energy. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit, restraining the defendants from recovering ₹76,278 under memo No.1819/RA electric number 14–928, and granted mandatory injunction directing restoration of supply. Findings of the First Appellate Court On appeal by the defendants, the learned Additional Distr Firozpur, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff, however, was permitted to pay the disputed amount in four equal monthly instalments, with liberty to the Board to disconnect the supply Submissions of Counsel for the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff was never sent to the Meter Examination Laboratory for verification, which was an essential step in proving theft. The defendants -3- The trial Court framed the following issues:- the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD Whether the plaintiff committed theft of energy in the manner mentioned in the written statement? OPD spective evidence. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove that the plaintiff was found committing theft of electrical energy. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit, restraining the defendants No.1819/RA-3, dated 07.09.1988 in respect 928, and granted mandatory injunction directing On appeal by the defendants, the learned Additional District Judge, Firozpur, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff, however, was permitted to pay the disputed amount in four equal monthly instalments, with liberty to the Board to disconnect the supply /plaintiff contended that the matter was never sent to the Meter Examination Laboratory for verification, which was an themselves admitted that the seals the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for? Whether the plaintiff committed theft of energy in the manner On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court held that the defendants had failed to prove that the plaintiff was found committing theft of electrical energy. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit, restraining the defendants 1988 in respect 928, and granted mandatory injunction directing ict Judge, Firozpur, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff, however, was permitted to pay the disputed amount in four equal monthly instalments, with liberty to the Board to disconnect the supply on contended that the matter was never sent to the Meter Examination Laboratory for verification, which was an themselves admitted that the seals TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-274-1993 were checked about fifteen days earlier and were found in order. No rule was produced to prove that the SDO could not check the seals. It was further argued that the alleged detection by the flying squad was based only o which is unreliable without laboratory verification. The alleged undertaking of the plaintiff was stated to have been procured under coercion and therefore had no binding effect. It was further argued that the lower appellate court wro the onus of Issue No. 2A onto the plaintiff, whereas the burden to prove theft of energy lay squarely on the defendants. 9. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the respondents/defendants Findings 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant examined the record. 11. Allegations of theft of energy are quasi strictly proved by the party who asserts them. The burden to prove Issue No. 2A, i.e “Whether the plaintiff committed theft of energy in the manner mentioned in the written statement? 12. The the allegations of theft. The case of the seals affixed to the meter were fake and that the meter was tampered with to reverse the readings. In such circumstances, the best evidence was the meter itself with the seals, examined and reported upon by the authorised Meter Examin Laboratory. However, the seals were sealed, preserved and sent to the laboratory. No laboratory report was exhibited and no competent witness from the laboratory was examined. The plea (O&M) were checked about fifteen days earlier and were found in order. No rule was produced to prove that the SDO could not check the seals. It was further argued that the alleged detection by the flying squad was based only o which is unreliable without laboratory verification. The alleged undertaking of the plaintiff was stated to have been procured under coercion and therefore had no binding effect. It was further argued that the lower appellate court wro the onus of Issue No. 2A onto the plaintiff, whereas the burden to prove theft of energy lay squarely on the defendants. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the /defendants to contest the present appeal. have heard learned counsel for the appellant examined the record. Allegations of theft of energy are quasi strictly proved by the party who asserts them. The burden to prove Issue No. 2A, ether the plaintiff committed theft of energy in the manner mentioned in the written statement?”, was upon the defendants. The respondents/defendants have not led sufficient evidence to prove the allegations of theft. The case of the respondents/ seals affixed to the meter were fake and that the meter was tampered with to reverse the readings. In such circumstances, the best evidence was the meter itself with the seals, examined and reported upon by the authorised Meter Examin Laboratory. However, the respondents/defendants did not prove that the meter and seals were sealed, preserved and sent to the laboratory. No laboratory report was exhibited and no competent witness from the laboratory was examined. The plea -4- were checked about fifteen days earlier and were found in order. No rule was produced to prove that the SDO could not check the seals. It was further argued that the alleged detection by the flying squad was based only on visual inspection, which is unreliable without laboratory verification. The alleged undertaking of the plaintiff was stated to have been procured under coercion and therefore had no binding effect. It was further argued that the lower appellate court wrongly shifted the onus of Issue No. 2A onto the plaintiff, whereas the burden to prove theft of Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the to contest the present appeal. have heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and carefully Allegations of theft of energy are quasi-criminal in nature and must be strictly proved by the party who asserts them. The burden to prove Issue No. 2A, ether the plaintiff committed theft of energy in the manner mentioned in , was upon the defendants. defendants have not led sufficient evidence to prove respondents/defendants is that the M&T seals affixed to the meter were fake and that the meter was tampered with to reverse the readings. In such circumstances, the best evidence was the meter itself with the seals, examined and reported upon by the authorised Meter Examination defendants did not prove that the meter and seals were sealed, preserved and sent to the laboratory. No laboratory report was exhibited and no competent witness from the laboratory was examined. The plea were checked about fifteen days earlier and were found in order. No rule was produced to prove that the SDO could not check the seals. It was further argued n visual inspection, which is unreliable without laboratory verification. The alleged undertaking of the plaintiff was stated to have been procured under coercion and therefore had no ngly shifted the onus of Issue No. 2A onto the plaintiff, whereas the burden to prove theft of Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the and carefully criminal in nature and must be strictly proved by the party who asserts them. The burden to prove Issue No. 2A, ether the plaintiff committed theft of energy in the manner mentioned in defendants have not led sufficient evidence to prove dants is that the M&T seals affixed to the meter were fake and that the meter was tampered with to reverse the readings. In such circumstances, the best evidence was the meter itself ation defendants did not prove that the meter and seals were sealed, preserved and sent to the laboratory. No laboratory report was exhibited and no competent witness from the laboratory was examined. The plea TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-274-1993 that the flying squad made verification, particularly when the Board itself claims exclusive custody of the confidential seal specimens. 13. Further, the enforcement checking register or proved it through its author. This omission further weakens their defence. 14. The said to have been obtained from the plaintiff at the time of disconnection. Even if such an undertaking was executed, as per the case of the defendants themselves, it was only for the purpose of compoundi the assessed amount in order to avoid disconnection. In a civil suit, such an undertaking cannot absolve the defendants of their duty to prove the allegations of theft. The lower appellate court’s approach in shif to prove that he did not steal energy is contrary to settled principles of law. 15. It is well settled that allegations of theft of electricity cannot be inferred from suspicion or presumption alone. The respondents/def bound to establish such allegations by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. In the absence of any laboratory test, documentary proof or testimony of a competent technical witness, the mere ipse dixit of the inspecting squad is insufficient that the plaintiff committed theft of energy. that the defendants had failed to discharge their burden. findings of the learned lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff committed theft of electricity, are without any basis (O&M) flying squad made field detection by naked eye cannot replace forensic verification, particularly when the Board itself claims exclusive custody of the confidential seal specimens. Further, the respondents/defendants have not produced the checking register or proved it through its author. This omission further weakens their defence. The respondents/defendants also relied upon the alleged undertaking said to have been obtained from the plaintiff at the time of disconnection. Even if such an undertaking was executed, as per the case of the defendants themselves, it was only for the purpose of compounding the alleged offence and agreeing to pay the assessed amount in order to avoid disconnection. In a civil suit, such an undertaking cannot absolve the defendants of their duty to prove the allegations of theft. The lower appellate court’s approach in shif to prove that he did not steal energy is contrary to settled principles of law. It is well settled that allegations of theft of electricity cannot be suspicion or presumption alone. The respondents/def bound to establish such allegations by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. In the absence of any laboratory test, documentary proof or testimony of a competent technical witness, the mere ipse dixit of the inspecting squad is insufficient that the plaintiff committed theft of energy. The trial Court was correct in holding that the defendants had failed to discharge their burden. of the learned lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff committed theft of without any basis. -5- detection by naked eye cannot replace forensic verification, particularly when the Board itself claims exclusive custody of the defendants have not produced the checking register or proved it through its author. This omission defendants also relied upon the alleged undertaking said to have been obtained from the plaintiff at the time of disconnection. Even if such an undertaking was executed, as per the case of the defendants themselves, it ng the alleged offence and agreeing to pay the assessed amount in order to avoid disconnection. In a civil suit, such an undertaking cannot absolve the defendants of their duty to prove the allegations of theft. The lower appellate court’s approach in shifting the burden onto the plaintiff to prove that he did not steal energy is contrary to settled principles of law. It is well settled that allegations of theft of electricity cannot be suspicion or presumption alone. The respondents/defendants were bound to establish such allegations by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. In the absence of any laboratory test, documentary proof or testimony of a competent technical witness, the mere ipse dixit of the inspecting squad is insufficient to hold The trial Court was correct in holding that the defendants had failed to discharge their burden. On the other hand, of the learned lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff committed theft of detection by naked eye cannot replace forensic verification, particularly when the Board itself claims exclusive custody of the defendants have not produced the checking register or proved it through its author. This omission defendants also relied upon the alleged undertaking said to have been obtained from the plaintiff at the time of disconnection. Even if such an undertaking was executed, as per the case of the defendants themselves, it ng the alleged offence and agreeing to pay the assessed amount in order to avoid disconnection. In a civil suit, such an undertaking cannot absolve the defendants of their duty to prove the allegations of ting the burden onto the plaintiff It is well settled that allegations of theft of electricity cannot be were bound to establish such allegations by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. In the absence of any laboratory test, documentary proof or testimony of a competent to hold The trial Court was correct in holding On the other hand, of the learned lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff committed theft of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-274-1993 Conclusion 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings of the lower appellate court are unsustainable. The trial Court had rightly decreed the suit by holding that theft of electrical energy. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Firozpur, the decree of the trial Court allowed. 17. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 25, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings of the lower appellate court are unsustainable. The trial Court had rightly decreed the suit by holding that theft of electrical energy. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Firozpur, the decree of the trial Court dated 24.08.1991 is Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -6- In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings of the lower appellate court are unsustainable. The trial Court had rightly decreed the suit by holding that the defendants failed to establish theft of electrical energy. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Firozpur, is hereby set aside, and is upheld. The appeal is accordingly Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings of the lower appellate court are unsustainable. The trial the defendants failed to establish 16.12.1992 hereby set aside, and . The appeal is accordingly TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.01 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document