Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 6982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Devan M. Desai, J
Executive Engineer G.E.B. – Appellant
Versus
Mulraj Ice Factory – Respondent
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1673 of 1996
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Lilu K Bhaya
For the Respondents: P. M. Lakhani, R. P. Lakhani
The burden of proof lies with the electricity provider to establish theft of energy through concrete evidence; mere possibility of tampering (e.g., a gap in the meter) without expert testimony or onsite evidence of irregularity is insufficient to sustain a claim for recovery.
Headnote:(A) Electricity Law - Theft of Energy - Burden of Proof - A laboratory report stating a plastic strip can be inserted in a meter gap, without corroborative evidence of actual tampering or expert testimony, is insufficient to establish dishonest abstraction of energy. (Para 10)
(B) Civil Procedure - Supplementary Bill - Justification - Issuance of a revised/supplementary bill during the pendency of a suit without adequate explanation in pleadings or evidence is not sustainable. (Para 9, 10)
Issues: Whether the defendants established that the plaintiff committed theft of electric energy and whether the supplementary bill issued was legally recoverable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and framing of issues regarding the validity of electricity bills and allegations of power theft. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conflicting arguments on whether a laboratory report and the ability to insert a plastic strip constitute proof of energy theft under section 33b. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence regarding the lack of onsite tampering and the failure to justify the revised supplementary bill. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. affirmation of the trial court's decree due to insufficient evidence produced by the appellants. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants – original defendants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.01.1996 (for short, `the impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (SD), Gondal in Special Civil Suit No. 57 of 1995.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. P. M. Lakhani for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. The facts in brief of the case are as under:
3.1 The plaintiffs – respondents herein, filed a suit for cancellation of bill dated 23.03.1995 amounting to Rs.2,17,857.58 paisa and a subsequent revised bill dated 05.05.1995 for an amount of Rs.10,07,976.80 paisa coupled with a relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from disconnecting electric supply. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement at Exhibit – 28.
3.2 Following issues were framed by learned Trial Court at Exhibit – 36.
“1. Whether plaintiff proves that impugned bill dated 23.09.1995 is false, arbitrary and not recoverable from the plaintiff?
2. Whether the defendants have issued two bills. If yes, on which of the bill defendants rely?
2-A. Whether revised bill dated 05.05.1995 of Rs.10,07,976.80 ps. is legal, valid and recoverable?
2-B. Whether the defendants prove that the Court fee is insufficient?
3. Whether the defendants prove that plaintiff hadtempered with electric meter and committed theft of power?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for?
5. Whether the defendants G.E.B. prove that plaintiff is liable to pay sum of Rs.10,07,976.80 ps. of bill dated 05.05.1995?
6. What order, what decree?”
3.3 Plaintiff examined himself at Exhibit – 39. The defendant examined its witnesses at Exhibit – 81 and 86. After considering the evidence, learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and further directed the defendants to return the amount deposited by the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the defendants – appellants have filed the present appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants contended that appellants – defendants have supplied electric connection and the consumer No.33201000086 was allotted to the respondents. On 10.03.1995, a checking squad of the defendants had checked electric meter. As per Rules, the meter was sent for laboratorytesting and as per testing report, that on opening the meter, green substance was visible. Upon such report, the defendant authority was satisfied that the plaintiff is involved in a theft of energy. It is submitted that it is a clear case of theft of electric power by tampering with the meter and the plaintiff was dishonestly abstracting energy which would amount to a theft being committed by the consumer within the meaning of IPC. It is further submitted that initially the bill was issued on 23.03.1995 for an amount of Rs.2,17,857.58 paisa. As the defendants found some mistake in the calculation in connection load, a revised bill dated 05.05.1995 for an amount of Rs.10,07,976.80 paisa came to be issued pending the suit. The first bill came to be cancelled by the appellants - defendants upon issuance of the revised bill.
4.1. Learned advocate for the appellants has relied upon Section 33B
