M.B. Shah, President—Despite repeated services, the respondent/complainant has not remained present. Lastly, direct service was also issued but the complainant refused to accept the same.

2. These revision petitions are filed against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2000 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, in Appeal Nos. 1310/1998 and 1333/1998 by which the State Commission dismissed the Appeal No. 1333/98 filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board, confirmed the order dated 27.10.98 passed by the District Forum, Amritsar in complaint No. 772 of 1998 and partly allowed the Appeal No. 1310/1998 filed by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation.

3. The District Forum and the State Commission dealt with the matter as if they were deciding a criminal case and observed that where there is allegation of theft of electricity, the Electricity Board has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant has committed the theft. It is also observed that the allegation of theft being penal in nature amounts to criminal offence and, hence, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, is heavily cast on the Electri