Rajasthan High Court Orders Tehsildar To Personally Pay ₹2 Lakh Compensation For 53-Day Illegal Detention Despite Suspension Of Sentence Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras 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