Point of Law: Section 135 of 2003 Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and penalty that can be imposed for such theft. This squarely falls within dimensions of criminal jurisprudence and mens rea is one of the relevant factors for finding a case of theft. On the contrary, Section 126 of 2003 Act does not speak of any criminal intendment and is primarily an action and remedy available under the civil law. It does not have features or elements which are traceable to the criminal concept of mens rea.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed that the action of the respondent of issuance of the supplementary bill dated 13.11.2018 of Rs.42,02,967.53 ps. be quashed and set aside.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.B.M.Mangukiya for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr.Raval for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate Ms.Bhaya for respondent nos.2 and 3.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is running a small industry of stone crushing and the same is established in the year 1983. The petitioner has from time to time changed the machines for the aforesaid purpose. The petitioner has stated about the normal consumption of power in the year 2015-16 to 2017-18 and placed on record relevant bills for the aforesaid period. It is stated that except the present dispute, there is no allegation levelled against the petitioner in past that the petitioner has committed any malpractice so far as the electric connection is concerned.

3.2 It is further stated that the officers of the respondent had visited the premises of the petitioner on 3.11.2017 and checking memo was prepared wherein it is stated that seal on the meter box was missing. The other seals were found in order. It is stated that tests were conducted about recording of the consumption of the power by the said officers. The officers suggested that there was error in display and therefore it is stated that immediate replacement of the meter is required. It is stated that despite the suggestions made by the said officers, no steps were taken by the respondents to change the meter at the place of the petitioner. It is further stated that the premises of the petitioner was again visited by the officers of the respondents on 27.10.2018. The said officers informed the petitioner that the complaint has been made against the petitioner in the head office and therefore the said officers were sent with the specific instructions. The checking memo was prepared and the person who was present at the site was asked to sign the memo. It is stated that though the seals were not broken, it was wrongly recorded that the seal was broken. It is further submitted that the meter was sent for testing at Dhrangadhra which was at a distance of about 70 kms. from the place of the petitioner. It is stated that the distance between the site of the petitioner and Limdi town is 30 kms whereas the distance between the site of the petitioner and Surendranagar town is 22 kms. Though the laboratories were available at Limdi as well as Surendranagar, meter was surprisingly sent for testing to a laboratory situated in a small town. The laboratory test report was thereafter prepared on 13.11.2018 and it is alleged that the petitioner has committed power theft and therefore FIR is lodged at PGVCL police station Surendranagar for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). It is further submitted that power supply was disconnected and supplementary bill for an amount of Rs.42,02,967.53 ps. was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition.

3.3 Learned advocate Mr.Mangukiya for the petitioner has assailed the issuance of the supplementary bill mainly on the ground that on 3.11.2017, while the officers of the respondent have visited the place of the petitioner, they observed that there is no illegality committed in the meter and MMB seal was not available. They have suggested that the meter is to be replaced immediately. Inspite of the said suggestion, the respondent authority has not replaced the meter at the place of the petitioner and thereafter because of the fact that the brother of the petitioner happens to be the President of different political party than the party in power, the petitioner has been specially selected for the raid. It is further subm