When Police Search Both The Bag And The Body, Section 50 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed: Supreme Court Settles The Boundaries Of A Critical Safeguard Police Cannot Offer A Third Option During NDPS Search: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In 11 Kg Charas Case, Holds Section 50 Violation Vitiates Entire Trial Supreme Court Holds Employer Group Insurance Has No Connection With Accidental Death, Cannot Be Set Off Against Motor Accident Compensation Graduating Shouldn't Be A Punishment: Supreme Court Restores Rights Of Anganwadi Workers Denied Supervisor Posts For Being Over-Qualified Trustee Who Diverts Sale Proceeds of Charitable Trust Is an 'Agent' Under Section 409 IPC, Not Exempt From Criminal Breach of Trust: Bombay High Court AFGIS Is 'State' Under Article 12: Supreme Court Reverses Delhi High Court, Restores Writ Petitions of Air Force Insurance Society Employees Delhi High Court Issues Landmark Directions Against Repeated Summoning of Child Victims, Insistence on Presence During Bail Hearings In POCSO 'Accidental Injury' in Hospital Records, All Eye-Witnesses Hostile: Gujarat High Court Acquits Men Convicted for Culpable Homicide After 35 Years Medical Condition Alone Cannot Dilute the Statutory Embargo Under Section 37 NDPS Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Pre-emption Cannot Wait for Registration When Possession Has Already Changed Hands: Punjab & Haryana High Court Strikes Down Time-Barred Claim Listing a Case for Evidence Is Not Commencement of Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Insurance Dispute Forgery Accused Cannot Be Declared 'Proclaimed Offender': Punjab and Haryana High Court Draws Critical Distinction Between 'Proclaimed Person' and 'Proclaimed Offender' A Two-Line Ex Parte Judgment Is No Judgment In The Eye Of Law: Madras High Court Declares Decree Inexecutable What Was Not Claimed Then Cannot Be Claimed Now: Calcutta High Court Applies Constructive Res Judicata to Bar Second Partition Suit Unregistered Family Settlement Creates No Rights in Immovable Property: Delhi High Court Rejects Brother's Ownership Claim Police Must Protect Lawful Possession When Civil Court Decree Is Defied: Kerala High Court Upholds Purchase Certificate Holder’s Rights Over Alleged Temple Claim One Mark Short, No Right to Appointment: Patna High Court Dismisses Engineer's Claim to Vacancies Left by Non-Joining Candidates Bombay High Court Binds MCA to Arbitration as "Veritable Party" in T20 League Dispute Silence in the Witness Box Can Sink Your Case: ‘Non-Examination Leads to Presumption Against Party’ — Andhra Pradesh High Court Sale Deed Holder With Registered Title Prevails Over Claimant Under Mere Agreement To Sell: Karnataka High Court Candidate With 'Third Child' Disqualification Cannot Escape Consequence By Avoiding Cross-Examination: Supreme 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