Eyewitness Consistency is Key in Upholding Murder Convictions," Rules Rajasthan High Court State Cannot Take the Defence of Adverse Possession Against an Individual, Rules MP High Court in Land Encroachment Case Ignoring Crucial Evidence is an Illegal Approach: P&H High Court in Remanding Ancestral Property Dispute for Fresh Appraisal A Litigant Should Not Suffer for the Mistakes of Their Advocate: Madras High Court Overturns Rejection of Plaint in Specific Performance Suit 20% Interim Compensation is Not Optional in Cheque Bounce Appeals, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court Presumption of Innocence Fortified by Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Verdict in Accident Case Absence of Fitness Certificate Invalidates Insurance Claim, Rules MP High Court: Statutory Requirement Can't Be Ignored Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Protection for Live-In Couple Amidst Pending Divorce Proceedings Reassessment Must Be Based on New Tangible Material: Delhi High Court Quashes IT Proceedings Against Samsung India Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Police Officer Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old: 'Grave Offences Demand Strict Standards' Repeated Writ Petitions Unacceptable: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Land Acquisition Challenge Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Reassessment Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers in Light of Faceless Assessment Scheme Adverse Possession Claims Fail Without Proof of Hostile Possession: Madras High Court Temple's Ancient Land Rights Upheld: Kerala High Court Rejects Adverse Possession Claims Expulsion Must Be Exercised in Good Faith — Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Adjudication in Partnership Dispute Instigation Requires Reasonable Certainty to Incite the Consequence: Delhi High Court in Suicide Case

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

Similar News