The judgment emphasizes the need for evidence to establish theft of electricity and the presumption of innocence for the consumer, highlighting the requirements for establishing theft under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

1. Petitioner is a partnership firm and a consumer of the respondents i.e. erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board. It had a contract demand under HT category of 124 KVA. In pursuance thereof, an electric meter was installed at their premises on 14.11.2008. Power was energized. The meter in question has been supplied by M/s Secure Meters Ltd., which is supposed to be a tamper proof instrument for recording consumption of power. There are many inbuilt safeguards provided in the said meter, which is supposed to give tell-tale signs if there is any effort made to tamper with it as also if actual theft of energy had been committed by a consumer due to tampering. The technical details are not required to be gone into at this stage. Suffice it to say that a reading of the booklet provided by M/s Secure Meters Ltd. by itself will indicate the kind of safeguards, which are available in such meters and how a download of the reading of the secure meter can provide inputs to establish theft of energy by any consumer.

2. In the present case, an inspection was carried out at the premises of the petitioner on 10.8.2009. The inspection report was drawn up in presence of the representative of the consumer and is part of the writ application as Annexure-5. It is a very detailed inspection report running into several pages bearing the signature of various signatories, which also indicates the names and status of the officials, who were part of that inspection exercise. The only thing significant, which emerges from the inspection report, is reproduced herein below :-

“In course of inspection, the two nos. polycarbonate seals fixed on the meter box was found tampered and duplicated having different serial nos. The duplication was detected when the existing seals on the meter box at the time of inspection was compared with the record of the installation of the seals obtained from the office. The original seals installed on the meter box as per record were having seal nos.0014706 and 0014707 (copy enclosed) whereas the duplicate seals found at the time of inspection in the tampered conditions were having serial nos.0480177 and 0480178. As the deliberate duplication and tampering of seals of the meter box by the consumer was detected, the meter & modem contained in the meter box in the sealed condition is sealed with tampered duplicated serial nos.0480177 and 0480178 was removed and seized against theft of electricity.”

3. The meter in question was removed and seized. It was put in a meter box wrapped in cloth and sealed in presence of the officers present as well as the representative of the consumer. Immediately thereafter, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 11.8.2009, alleging that the petitioner had committed theft of electricity causing a loss to the Board to the extent of almost Rs. 45 lakhs odd. Besides filing of the FIR, even an assessment was made and liability created against the petitioner and a demand raised. Provisional assessment order of the assessing authority is at page 51 of the brief and is part of Annexure - 7.

4. Petitioner decided to challenge the action of the respondent Board by filing the present writ application with assertions and proof duly annexed with the writ application that no evidence or charge of theft of energy can be made out either from the inspection report or surrounding materials gathered by the respondent Electricity Board. Mere tampering of polycarbonate seal by itself does not indicate theft of energy. If any action has been taken by the respondents as a consequence of the inspection, it is an unjustified exercise against the petitioner, more by way of inference rather than based on actual state of affairs.

5. It is the categorical stand of the counsel for the petitioner that in fact no ingredient of theft has been established and if there is no theft, there could be no action of lodging of the FIR or making any provisional or final assessment by the assessing authority of a presumptive los