Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Seals Of  Iron Box As Well As The Meter Were Found Intact By The Flying Squad As Admitted: Punjab And Haryana High Court Rejects Claims Of Meter Tampering Due To Lack Of Evidence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed an appeal by the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) against concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court regarding alleged tampering of an electricity meter at the respondent’s cotton factory. The judgment, delivered by Justice Alka Sarin, upheld that there was no substantive evidence of tampering, and the seals on the meter and its metal box were found intact, rendering the demand notice for Rs. 51,848/- invalid.

Background:The case originated when a Flying Squad from PSEB inspected the respondent Madan Lal’s cotton factory and alleged that the electricity meter had been tampered with, claiming the meter reading was reversed and the glass was scratched. Consequently, PSEB issued a demand notice for Rs. 51,848/-. Madan Lal challenged this notice in court, and both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in his favor, finding no substantial evidence of tampering. PSEB then appealed to the High Court.

Intact Seals on Meter and Metal Box: The court emphasized the importance of the intact seals on both the meter and its metal box. “The seals of the iron box as well as the meter were found intact by the Flying Squad as admitted even by the witnesses of the defendant-appellants,” noted Justice Sarin. This critical observation undermined the appellants’ claim of tampering.

Lack of Evidence of Glass Tampering: Addressing the claims of tampering, Justice Sarin remarked, “There was no material on the record to even remotely suggest that there was any tampering with the glass.” The appellants had argued that the meter reading was reversed and the glass was scratched. However, these claims were unsupported by corroborative evidence. The court noted that scratches on the glass alone were insufficient to prove tampering.

Witness Testimonies: The court scrutinized the testimony of DW2 Balwinder Singh, a member of the Flying Squad, who alleged tampering. However, the court found his statements unconvincing due to the lack of corroborating evidence. “The statement of DW2 regarding reversed meter reading considered insufficient without corroborative evidence,” the judgment stated.

The court’s legal reasoning focused on the absence of substantial evidence and the intact condition of the seals. The judgment stated, “Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that the meter was installed in a metal box with intact seals. No evidence was provided to support claims of glass tampering.”

Justice Sarin highlighted the significance of evidence in such cases: “No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.”

The dismissal of the appeal by the High Court reinforces the importance of concrete evidence in claims of meter tampering. By upholding the findings of the lower courts, this judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to basing decisions on clear and convincing evidence. This decision not only validates the respondent’s stance but also sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing that mere allegations without substantial proof cannot stand in a court of law.

Date of Decision: 31st May 2024

P.S.E.B Patiala and Anr. Vs. Madan Lal

Latest Legal News