Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As observed earlier, the contention of the Board is that this is a very sophisticated type of device adopted by the petitioner and, therefore, a scientific investigation and inspection was required by the Board to find out whether proper electricity consumption is recorded.

12. Considering the reasoning of the appellate committee on this aspect, as well as considering the documentary evidence and considering the argument of Ms. Bhaya, I am of the opinion that the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Committee, by which the consumer is found to have committed an act of theft of electricity energy, cannot be said to be an illegal finding in any manner. It cannot be said that there is absolutely no evidence worth the name for coming to the conclusion about the theft of electricity energy. It is, no doubt, true that on an earlier occasion, some inspections were carried out by the Board through its local Officers, but, as rightly pointed out by Ms. Bhaya, at that time, such rigorous test was not carried out, as, looking to the nature of device adopted by the petitioner, it was impossible for the Officers, who carried out the inspection at the earlier stage, to find out the nature of device adopted by the petitioner for the purpose of committing theft of electricity energy. Looking to the nature of device adopted by the petitioner, it was impossible for the inspecting party by mere glance at the meter to find out the theft of electricity energy. Merely looking at the meter or by checking the meter, it is not possible to find out the theft of electricity energy in view of the device adopted by the petitioner. This is not a case wherein theft is alleged on the ground of playing mischief with the meter in any manner. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for me to accept the say of Mr. Mehta that the finding of fact about theft is based on "No Evidence" or that the same is perverse. Ms. Bhaya amply demonstrated as to how the device was adopted by the petitioner to see that appropriate consumption is not recorded and as to how G-7 Cards are manipulated and that by resorting to the device of some external diversion created through 'C' shaped hooks provided on R & B phase on CTPT wires, the consumer was committing theft of electricity energy. The Board has ultimately been able to find out this type of device adopted by the petitioner by putting in great labour. Even if during checking, nothing objectionable was found with respect to the meter in question. CTPT Unit and their seals, it is clear that a clever device was adopted by the petitioner so far as 'C' shaped hooks provided on overhead conductors of R & B Phase are concerned.

17. Mr. Mehta has also relied upon a judgment of another Appellate Committee, wherein it is held that if during the earlier inspection, no illegality was found, the said fact is required to be taken into consideration for issuing the revised bill.

The aforesaid argument is opposed by Ms. Bhaya on the ground that on an earlier occasion, inspection was carried out only for the purpose of checking meter and she submitted that on 25-7-2001, installation was checked mainly for the accuracy of the metering system and it was ultimately found to be satisfactory. The installation checking was carried out mainly for the accuracy of the metering system and it was found satisfactory. It is submitted that on both the aforesaid occasions, checking was carried out in the presence of the representative of the consumer. Considering the nature of theft alleged against the petitioner and considering the nature of inspection carried out by the Special Squad on the relevant day, i.e. on 9-9-2001, in my view, it cannot be said that on the earlier occasion, similar type of rigorous checking, which was done on 9-9-2001, was carried out. As pointed out earlier, merely by checking the meter, the way in which the irregularity was committed could never have been detected by checking the meter. It would have been a different matter, if on the subsequent date, i.e. on 9th September, 2001, if the checking was done and if it was noticed that there was no tampering with the meter, then, naturally, the previous checking, wherein nothing objectionable was found, would assume some importance. In the instant case, therefore, since the nature of electricity theft was found out during checking on 9th September, 1991, the previous inspection, wherein the meter was found to be intact, will have no bearing whatsoever. On both the occasions, different type of detections were carried out by the Board. Under these circumstances, the contention of Mr. Mehta cannot be accepted that simply because, on earlier inspection, nothing objectionable was found and since everything was found to be in order, the revised bill was required to be issued only for the subsequent period from the date of earlier inspection.