Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside and quashing the provisional punitive bill dated 11.6.2008 raised pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by the informant, Assistant Engineer, Electric through memo No. 142 dated 10.6.2008 and other consequential developments and actions pursuant to the said provisional punitive bill.

3. The facts of the case, which lie within a narrow compass, are that on 16.3.2007 an electrical meter for the purpose of reading the consumption of electrical energy in the premises of the petitioner was installed. The said meter was supplied to the petitioner by the respondent-Board and to the Board by M/s. Secure Meter Limited. On the said meter being found not functioning by the authorities of Page 3007 the Board, the same was inspected by the Boards authorities along with the representatives of M/s. Secure Meter Ltd. on 16.5.2007 and it was decided to replace the same. Accordingly, a new meter was installed in the petitioners premises and the said defective/non-functional meter was taken away by the authorities of the Board. After more than a year a letter dated 29.5.2008 was served upon the petitioners stating that the defective meter has to be sent to the supplier M/s. Secure Meters Ltd.s highly equipped sophisticated and technically suitable Laboratory for proper analysis of type and cause of defect. It was informed that the meter was to be sent for analysis and data retrieval to the works of M/s. Secure Meter Ltd. at Udaipur, Rajasthan for which, the date and time was fixed as 6.6.2008 at 11 A.M. A request was made to the petitioners to depute their authorized representative to witness the said analysis. The petitioner claims to have made a protest with respect to the meter being sent to the M/s. Secure Meter Ltd.s Laboratory as also that the investigation ought to have been made within a reasonable time by its letter dated 30.5.2008, but the same is denied by the authorities of the Board contending that, as a matter of fact, the said letter is an after thought which was received in the office of the Board on 17.6.2008. Be that as it may, the authorities of the Board proceeded with the analysis of the said meter at M/s. Secure Meters Ltd. as a result of which it was found that NIC seal of the meter body was tampered, ultrasonic welding side plates were opened and again pasted using glue and the Holographic paper seal provided by manufacturer on meter body was tampered which indicates that the meter was opened by some one and it was further found that the snap of plastic bezel, lock washer for PCB holding, plaster washer below screw and mylar tape of CT housing was melted which indicated that the internal circuitry was damaged by applying external heat. The conclusion drawn from the analysis was that the meter was opened and damaged by external heating.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis report, an FIR was lodged by the authorities of the Board being Hawai Adda P.S. Case No. 52/2008 dated 10.6.2008 under Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 135/138 of the Electricity Act for the offence of theft of electrical energy. Simultaneously, a punitive bill was raised against the petitioner which was assessed at Rs. 8,04,975.50/- and after deducting the payment already made by the petitioner for energy consumption of assessed period, i.e., 16.3.2007 to 16.5.2007 amounting to Rs. 1,67,535, the balance amount of Rs. 6,37,440.50/- was directed to be paid by the petitioner in the said provisional punitive bill which farther included an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as cost of meter including the meter removal and fixing.

5. It is the stand of the petitioners that under the threat and coercion of disconnection of electric supply to the Cold Storage, the petitioner agreed to pay of the entire dues under the punitive bill in five instalments of which the first instalment of R