RSA-1714-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Shyam Sunder CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Ms. Vasundhra Asija Bhandari, for the appellants. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. The judgments and decree Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad and District Judge, Fatehabad of the respondent 2. In brief, the facts are that No.H55-DLID/0430 District Fatehabad payment of all electricity bills regularly and However, appellants Nos.H55/2022/566 and defendant whereby they him for causing on basis of alleged checking dated 12.06.2022 defendants, as he was 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-171 Date of Decision: Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Fatehabad Versus HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Ms. Vasundhra Asija Bhandari, Advocate for the appellants. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the and decrees dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad and dated District Judge, Fatehabad respectively whereby decrees have been passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. In brief, the facts are that an elect DLID/0430 installed at Village Dholu District Fatehabad was being used by the respondent payment of all electricity bills regularly and However, appellants-defendants had issued 55/2022/566 and H55/2022/567 dated 11.07.2022 defendant whereby they demanded a sum of Rs.1,26,495/ causing loss to the appellants-defendants on basis of alleged checking dated 12.06.2022 as he was allegedly found to be indulged IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1714-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:18.08.2025 , Fatehabad and another ... Appellants ... Respondent AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Advocate , J. (ORAL) defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil dated 01.02.2025 passed by the learned whereby decrees have been passed in favour an electric connection bearing account installed at Village Dholu, Sub-Tehsil Bhuna, Tehsil & respondent-plaintiff and he was making payment of all electricity bills regularly and nothing was due against him. issued two notices bearing memo 55/2022/567 dated 11.07.2022 to the responden demanded a sum of Rs.1,26,495/- and Rs. 14,000/- from defendants and for compounding the offence on basis of alleged checking dated 12.06.2022 conducted by the appellants to be indulged in theft of energy. It was IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil 01.02.2025 passed by the learned whereby decrees have been passed in favour ric connection bearing account Tehsil Bhuna, Tehsil & he was making nothing was due against him. two notices bearing memo to the respondent- from compounding the offence conducted by the appellants- It was PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1714-2025 (O&M) further averred that the alleged checking never done in the presence of the respondent defect found in the plaintiff was consuming electricity as per the sanctioned load. The impugned notices were issued behind the back of the respondent any opportunity of hearing. was also not given. The impugned notices were issued in contravention to the instructions of the appellants of law. Hence, the present suit was filed. 3. Upon noti statement taking preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, maintainability and it was stated that No.DL-1D/0430 installed at village Dholu Fatehabad was carried out by the duly authorized and competent officials of the appellants-defendants L.M. on 12.06.2022 in the presence of was found that the meter was installed outside the premises and supply of house was running direct from motor starter with output Ram Dev AP Feeder house of respondent black coloured app. 40 mtrs. and he site. The videography supply was disconnected checking report was prepared at the spot but the same was refused to be signed the respondent- 2025 (O&M) -2- further averred that the alleged checking as shown in the impugned notices was never done in the presence of the respondent- defect found in the meter, as its seal was found in plaintiff was consuming electricity as per the sanctioned load. The impugned notices were issued behind the back of the respondent any opportunity of hearing. Even notice with r was also not given. The impugned notices were issued in contravention to the instructions of the appellants-defendants and therefore, were not tenable in the eyes of law. Hence, the present suit was filed. Upon notice of the suit, defendants appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, maintainability and not coming to Court with clean hands. it was stated that checking in respect of the electricity connection bearing account 1D/0430 installed at village Dholu, Sub Fatehabad was carried out by the duly authorized and competent officials of the defendants namely Rampal S.D.O., Surajma L.M. on 12.06.2022 in the presence of respondent found that the meter was installed outside the premises and supply of house was running direct from motor starter with output Ram Dev AP Feeder respondent-plaintiff with the help of Single Core 25 mm black coloured app. 40 mtrs. and he was not allowed to remove the cable from e. The videography was done and on being found a case of theft of electricity, disconnected. As per the record, the load checking report was prepared at the spot but the same was refused to be signed -plaintiff. Thereafter, sundry item was prepared and the as shown in the impugned notices was -plaintiff. Moreover, there was no seal was found intact, much less, the respondent plaintiff was consuming electricity as per the sanctioned load. The impugned notices were issued behind the back of the respondent-plaintiff without affording Even notice with respect to provisional assessment was also not given. The impugned notices were issued in contravention to the defendants and therefore, were not tenable in the eyes ce of the suit, defendants appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action not coming to Court with clean hands. On merits, of the electricity connection bearing account , Sub Tehsil Bhuna, Tehsil & District Fatehabad was carried out by the duly authorized and competent officials of the namely Rampal S.D.O., Surajmal J.E. and Pawan Kumar, respondent-plaintiff. During the checking found that the meter was installed outside the premises and supply of house was running direct from motor starter with output Ram Dev AP Feeder near the with the help of Single Core 25 mm aluminum cable as not allowed to remove the cable from on being found a case of theft of electricity, he load was MDI 6.300. Copy of the checking report was prepared at the spot but the same was refused to be signed . Thereafter, sundry item was prepared and the respondent as shown in the impugned notices was plaintiff. Moreover, there was no tact, much less, the respondent- plaintiff was consuming electricity as per the sanctioned load. The impugned plaintiff without affording espect to provisional assessment was also not given. The impugned notices were issued in contravention to the defendants and therefore, were not tenable in the eyes ce of the suit, defendants appeared and filed written , cause of action, On merits, of the electricity connection bearing account Tehsil & District Fatehabad was carried out by the duly authorized and competent officials of the l J.E. and Pawan Kumar, . During the checking, it found that the meter was installed outside the premises and supply of house near the cable as not allowed to remove the cable from the on being found a case of theft of electricity, opy of the checking report was prepared at the spot but the same was refused to be signed by respondent- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1714-2025 (O&M) plaintiff was issued notices bearing memos No.H55/2022/566 and H55/2022/567 dated 11.07.2022 through which he was directed to make payment of Rs.1,26,495/ and Rs.14,000/ defendant No.1 4. On the bas trial Court including the issue of relief. witness box as PW documents Ex.P namely Rampal Dahiya, SDO as DW tendered documents Ex.D1 to D6. 5. On appreciation of oral as well documentary evidence placed before it, the learned trial Court Rs.1,26,495/-, Ex.P1 and Rs.14,000/ illegal, null and void and further restraining the appellants recovering the amount in question and disconnecti the respondent- restore the electricity connection of the plaintiff, if the same was disconnected on account of alleged checking. However, the amount of penalt impugned notices and order dated 24.08.2022 was not ordered to be refunded to the respondent-plaintiff but subjected to adjustment in the amount of final assessment as may be made by the appellants Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 200 defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree before the learned 1 Appellate Court also stands dismissed. dismissing the appeal 2025 (O&M) -3- issued notices bearing memos No.H55/2022/566 and H55/2022/567 ted 11.07.2022 through which he was directed to make payment of Rs.1,26,495/ and Rs.14,000/- to the appellants-defendants defendant No.1-Nigam. On the basis of pleadings, seven issues were framed trial Court including the issue of relief. The respondent witness box as PW-1 and deposed through affidavit Ex.PW1/A documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the other hand, def namely Rampal Dahiya, SDO as DW-1 and Jagdish Chander tendered documents Ex.D1 to D6. On appreciation of oral as well documentary evidence placed before it, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit by declaring the impugned notices of , Ex.P1 and Rs.14,000/- Ex.P2 issued by the appellants , null and void and further restraining the appellants recovering the amount in question and disconnecti -plaintiff due to above said notice restore the electricity connection of the plaintiff, if the same was disconnected on account of alleged checking. However, the amount of penalt impugned notices and order dated 24.08.2022 was not ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff but subjected to adjustment in the amount of final assessment as may be made by the appellants-defendants after following the prov Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Appeal preferred by the defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree before the learned 1 Appellate Court also stands dismissed. Rather, the 1 dismissing the appeal modified the decree of the learned trial Court and directed issued notices bearing memos No.H55/2022/566 and H55/2022/567 ted 11.07.2022 through which he was directed to make payment of Rs.1,26,495/ on account of loss caused to the is of pleadings, seven issues were framed by the learned The respondent-plaintiff stepped into the 1 and deposed through affidavit Ex.PW1/A and tendered and, defendants examined two witnesses 1 and Jagdish Chander, LDC as DW-2 and On appreciation of oral as well documentary evidence placed before it, by declaring the impugned notices of Ex.P2 issued by the appellants-defendants as , null and void and further restraining the appellants-defendants from recovering the amount in question and disconnecting the electricity connection of plaintiff due to above said notice. They were also directed to restore the electricity connection of the plaintiff, if the same was disconnected on account of alleged checking. However, the amount of penalty paid in pursuance of impugned notices and order dated 24.08.2022 was not ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff but subjected to adjustment in the amount of final assessment defendants after following the provisions of Appeal preferred by the appellants defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree before the learned 1 Rather, the 1st Appellate Court, while modified the decree of the learned trial Court and directed issued notices bearing memos No.H55/2022/566 and H55/2022/567 ted 11.07.2022 through which he was directed to make payment of Rs.1,26,495/- on account of loss caused to the by the learned stepped into the tendered endants examined two witnesses 2 and On appreciation of oral as well documentary evidence placed before it, by declaring the impugned notices of defendants as defendants from ng the electricity connection of They were also directed to restore the electricity connection of the plaintiff, if the same was disconnected on y paid in pursuance of impugned notices and order dated 24.08.2022 was not ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff but subjected to adjustment in the amount of final assessment isions of appellants- defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree before the learned 1st Appellate Court, while modified the decree of the learned trial Court and directed PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1714-2025 (O&M) the appellants-defendants to adjust the amount, if any, paid by the respondent plaintiff in his future electricity bills. 6. Learned counsel for the impugned notices were issued to the respondent an inspection was carried out at the premises of the respondent was found that theft of electricity was being done by him and, therefore, loss was caused to the appellant/defendant No.1 violate the procedure prescribed under the sale circular, as it was the respondent plaintiff, who himsel appreciation of oral as well as documentary the theft of electricity was duly proved but the learned 1 the said finding in a m clear-cut case of theft of electricity was made out against the respondent It is also submitted that 2003, Civil Court lacks j 7. Heard. 8. The appellants cases of theft of electricity under the Electricity Act, 2003 No.D-21/2017 on 16.06.2017 and as per Instruction III (6) of the said Circular, inspection is mandated to be photographed/videographed to the extent possible and in case, any unanticipated resistance comes at any stage, the AIO shall seek assistance from his senior office(s) and/or the vigilance wing and also call for additional police help. In such camera as far as possible. Tactical withdrawal is always an option in such situations. Admittedly, in the case in hand, 2025 (O&M) -4- defendants to adjust the amount, if any, paid by the respondent plaintiff in his future electricity bills. Hence, the regular second a Learned counsel for the appellants impugned notices were issued to the respondent an inspection was carried out at the premises of the respondent at theft of electricity was being done by him and, therefore, loss was caused to the appellant/defendant No.1-Nigam. violate the procedure prescribed under the sale circular, as it was the respondent plaintiff, who himself refused to sign the LL-1 report. appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence the theft of electricity was duly proved but the learned 1 finding in a mechanical manner, while cut case of theft of electricity was made out against the respondent It is also submitted that in cases of theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, Civil Court lacks jurisdiction. Heard. The appellants-defendants issued instructions for dealing with the cases of theft of electricity under the Electricity Act, 2003 21/2017 on 16.06.2017 and as per Instruction III (6) of the said Circular, inspection is mandated to be photographed/videographed to the extent possible and in case, any unanticipated resistance comes at any stage, the AIO shall seek assistance from his senior office(s) and/or the vigilance wing and also call for police help. In such cases, all events shall be recorded through video camera as far as possible. Tactical withdrawal is always an option in such dmittedly, in the case in hand, video clipping is of 47 seconds defendants to adjust the amount, if any, paid by the respondent the regular second appeal. appellants-defendants submits that impugned notices were issued to the respondent-plaintiff on account of the fact that an inspection was carried out at the premises of the respondent-plaintiff wherein it at theft of electricity was being done by him and, therefore, loss was Nigam. The appellants-defendants did not violate the procedure prescribed under the sale circular, as it was the respondent 1 report. The learned trial Court after evidence had rendered a finding that the theft of electricity was duly proved but the learned 1st Appellate Court reversed echanical manner, while completely ignoring the fact that a cut case of theft of electricity was made out against the respondent-plaintiff. in cases of theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, issued instructions for dealing with the cases of theft of electricity under the Electricity Act, 2003 vide Sales Circular 21/2017 on 16.06.2017 and as per Instruction III (6) of the said Circular, inspection is mandated to be photographed/videographed to the extent possible and in case, any unanticipated resistance comes at any stage, the AIO shall seek assistance from his senior office(s) and/or the vigilance wing and also call for all events shall be recorded through video camera as far as possible. Tactical withdrawal is always an option in such video clipping is of 47 seconds only; defendants to adjust the amount, if any, paid by the respondent- submits that the on account of the fact that wherein it at theft of electricity was being done by him and, therefore, loss was defendants did not violate the procedure prescribed under the sale circular, as it was the respondent- The learned trial Court after had rendered a finding that Appellate Court reversed completely ignoring the fact that a plaintiff. in cases of theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, issued instructions for dealing with the vide Sales Circular 21/2017 on 16.06.2017 and as per Instruction III (6) of the said Circular, the inspection is mandated to be photographed/videographed to the extent possible and in case, any unanticipated resistance comes at any stage, the AIO shall seek assistance from his senior office(s) and/or the vigilance wing and also call for all events shall be recorded through video camera as far as possible. Tactical withdrawal is always an option in such only; PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1714-2025 (O&M) whereas the inspection videography was placed on record as Ex.D2, however, certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act accuracy of electronic evidence thereof, CD Ex.D2 cannot be taken into consideration. during cross-examination deposed that seals of the electricity meter were intact. 9. Further, Instruction III (10) of the aforesaid Cir “10. behalf shall be of the seizure memo shall be who shall sign the receipt. If shall record such refusal on the seizure memo and conspicuous place outside the premises and take a photograph, send it to the consumer by registered post/ Speed Post within two working days. A perusal of the aforesaid instruction reveals that a copy of the seizure memo shall be delivered to such occupant or person of the place of search, who shall sign the receipt and if he refuses to sign, the authorized officer is mandated to record such refusal on the seizure memo and paste a copy at conspicuous place outside the premises and take a photograph, or send it to the consumer by registered post/speed post within two work on record that such procedure, w appellants-defendants, as neither any photograph placed on record showing that the seizure memo was pasted at conspicuous place outside the premises or it was sent to the consumer by registered post/speed pos appellants-defendants is that the respondent 10. Instruction III (13) of the Circular 2025 (O&M) -5- whereas the inspection of the premises continued for 20 videography was placed on record as Ex.D2, however, certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to safeguard, ensuring the reliability and accuracy of electronic evidence was not filed along with thereof, CD Ex.D2 cannot be taken into consideration. examination deposed that seals of the electricity meter were intact. Further, Instruction III (10) of the aforesaid Cir 10. The occupant of the place of search or any other person on his behalf shall be allowed to remain present during the search and copy of the seizure memo shall be delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the receipt. If he refuses to shall record such refusal on the seizure memo and conspicuous place outside the premises and take a photograph, send it to the consumer by registered post/ Speed Post within two working days.” A perusal of the aforesaid instruction reveals that a copy of the seizure memo shall be delivered to such occupant or person of the place of search, who shall sign the receipt and if he refuses to sign, the authorized officer is mandated to refusal on the seizure memo and paste a copy at conspicuous place outside the premises and take a photograph, or send it to the consumer by registered post/speed post within two working days. There is no evidence available on record that such procedure, which is mandatory defendants, as neither any photograph placed on record showing that the seizure memo was pasted at conspicuous place outside the premises or it was sent to the consumer by registered post/speed pos defendants is that the respondent-plaintiff refused to sign. Instruction III (13) of the Circular of the premises continued for 20-25 minutes. CD of videography was placed on record as Ex.D2, however, certificate under Section 65 safeguard, ensuring the reliability and t filed along with it and in the absence thereof, CD Ex.D2 cannot be taken into consideration. DW-1 SDO Rampal Dahiya examination deposed that seals of the electricity meter were intact. Further, Instruction III (10) of the aforesaid Circular reads as under: The occupant of the place of search or any other person on his allowed to remain present during the search and copy delivered to such occupant or person he refuses to sign, the authorized officer shall record such refusal on the seizure memo and paste a copy at a conspicuous place outside the premises and take a photograph, send it to the consumer by registered post/ Speed Post within two A perusal of the aforesaid instruction reveals that a copy of the seizure memo shall be delivered to such occupant or person of the place of search, who shall sign the receipt and if he refuses to sign, the authorized officer is mandated to refusal on the seizure memo and paste a copy at conspicuous place outside the premises and take a photograph, or send it to the consumer by days. There is no evidence available hich is mandatory in nature, was adopted by the defendants, as neither any photograph placed on record showing that the seizure memo was pasted at conspicuous place outside the premises or it was sent to the consumer by registered post/speed post, when the specific case of the plaintiff refused to sign. Instruction III (13) of the Circular ibid, reads as under:- CD of videography was placed on record as Ex.D2, however, certificate under Section 65- safeguard, ensuring the reliability and it and in the absence 1 SDO Rampal Dahiya examination deposed that seals of the electricity meter were intact. cular reads as under:- The occupant of the place of search or any other person on his allowed to remain present during the search and copy delivered to such occupant or person sign, the authorized officer paste a copy at a conspicuous place outside the premises and take a photograph, or send it to the consumer by registered post/ Speed Post within two A perusal of the aforesaid instruction reveals that a copy of the seizure memo shall be delivered to such occupant or person of the place of search, who shall sign the receipt and if he refuses to sign, the authorized officer is mandated to refusal on the seizure memo and paste a copy at conspicuous place outside the premises and take a photograph, or send it to the consumer by days. There is no evidence available nature, was adopted by the defendants, as neither any photograph placed on record showing that the seizure memo was pasted at conspicuous place outside the premises or it was sent t, when the specific case of the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1714-2025 (O&M) “13. inspecting team his representative at the site by the consumer or his authorized report or give a receipt, a copy may be pasted at outside the premises and photographed, or sent to the registered post/ Speed Post within two working days of the checking. Ev plaintiff himself refused to sign the LL instruction III (13), a copy thereof ought to have been pasted at a conspicuous place outside the premises and photographed, or sent to the consumer by registered post/speed post within two work the appellants- photograph is made available on record; neither copy of the checking report was sent through registered post/speed post within two working days of the 11. It is also worthwhile to refer to instruction III ( which, where clear evidence of theft or tampering of to pilferage of energy is available at site Inspecting Officer (AIO) the online portal of LL for registration of FIR, along concerned SHO I&P Police detection of theft. portal of LL-1 Monitoring registration of FIR 2025 (O&M) -6- “13. The LL-1 report shall be signed by the AIO and members of the inspecting team and a copy shall be handed over to the consumer or his representative at the site under proper receipt. In case of refusal by the consumer or his authorized report or give a receipt, a copy may be pasted at outside the premises and photographed, or sent to the registered post/ Speed Post within two working days of the checking. Even for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that plaintiff himself refused to sign the LL-1 report instruction III (13), a copy thereof ought to have been pasted at a conspicuous place outside the premises and photographed, or sent to the consumer by registered post/speed post within two working days of checking. -defendants that the inspection site was photographed, no such photograph is made available on record; neither copy of the checking report was sent through registered post/speed post within two working days of the It is also worthwhile to refer to instruction III ( clear evidence of theft or tampering of to pilferage of energy is available at site, after detection of theft, the Authorized Inspecting Officer (AIO) is required to lodge the complaint of theft of electricity on the online portal of LL-1 Monitoring System (as per the Proforma at Annexure for registration of FIR, along with uploading the copy of the LL concerned SHO I&P Police Station immediately, but not later than 24 hours after detection of theft. However, no such complaint of theft of electricity on the online 1 Monitoring System (as per the Proforma at Annexure FIR was made. 1 report shall be signed by the AIO and members of the and a copy shall be handed over to the consumer or under proper receipt. In case of refusal by the consumer or his authorized representative to either accept the report or give a receipt, a copy may be pasted at a conspicuous place outside the premises and photographed, or sent to the consumer by registered post/ Speed Post within two working days of the checking. en for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that the respondent report, then in that eventuality, as per instruction III (13), a copy thereof ought to have been pasted at a conspicuous place outside the premises and photographed, or sent to the consumer by registered days of checking. Despite the stand taken by defendants that the inspection site was photographed, no such photograph is made available on record; neither copy of the checking report was sent through registered post/speed post within two working days of the checking. It is also worthwhile to refer to instruction III (20), according to clear evidence of theft or tampering of meter or any other act leading fter detection of theft, the Authorized the complaint of theft of electricity on System (as per the Proforma at Annexure- with uploading the copy of the LL-1 report, to the Station immediately, but not later than 24 hours after However, no such complaint of theft of electricity on the online r the Proforma at Annexure-III) 1 report shall be signed by the AIO and members of the and a copy shall be handed over to the consumer or under proper receipt. In case of refusal representative to either accept the place consumer by registered post/ Speed Post within two working days of the checking.” the respondent- then in that eventuality, as per instruction III (13), a copy thereof ought to have been pasted at a conspicuous place outside the premises and photographed, or sent to the consumer by registered Despite the stand taken by defendants that the inspection site was photographed, no such photograph is made available on record; neither copy of the checking report was checking. , according to meter or any other act leading fter detection of theft, the Authorized the complaint of theft of electricity on -III), 1 report, to the Station immediately, but not later than 24 hours after However, no such complaint of theft of electricity on the online for PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1714-2025 (O&M) 12. Assessment order under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 can be passed only if inspection report records finding and evidence of theft. In the present case, the mandatory procedure prescribed the appellant No.1/Nigam itself has been flouted, which put the inspection report cloud. Furthermore, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the unauthorized use of electricity is not simplicitor as enshrined under Section 126 of the Act (supra) but proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the appellants failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent in theft of electricity. 13. In the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and the same are upheld, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Consequentl 14. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall August 18, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -7- Assessment order under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 can be passed only if inspection report records finding and evidence of theft. In the present case, the mandatory procedure prescribed the appellant self has been flouted, which put the inspection report cloud. Furthermore, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the unauthorized use of electricity is not simplicitor as enshrined under Section 126 of the Act (supra) but mens rea attached to it, and therefore, the alleged theft is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the appellants failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent in theft of electricity. view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and irregularity in the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and the same are upheld, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Consequently, the instant regular second appeal stands dismissed. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Assessment order under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 can be passed only if inspection report records finding and evidence of theft. In the present case, the mandatory procedure prescribed the appellant-defendant self has been flouted, which put the inspection report itself under the cloud. Furthermore, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the unauthorized use of electricity is not simplicitor as enshrined under Section 126 of attached to it, and therefore, the alleged theft is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the appellants-defendants failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent-plaintiff was indulged view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and irregularity in the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and the same are upheld, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the y, the instant regular second appeal stands dismissed. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No Assessment order under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 can be passed only if inspection report records finding and evidence of theft. In the defendant under the cloud. Furthermore, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the unauthorized use of electricity is not simplicitor as enshrined under Section 126 of attached to it, and therefore, the alleged theft is to be defendants plaintiff was indulged view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and irregularity in the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and the same are upheld, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the y, the instant regular second appeal stands dismissed. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh