1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3391/2007 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ...Versus... Chandrashekhar Kisanlal Jaiswal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri R.K. Deshpande, Adv. for applicant] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 05.03.2008 Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant on merits of the matter and having perused the impugned judgment, it clearly appears that the complainant utterly failed to prove by positive evidence that the electric meter in question was tampered. The learned Trial Court has recorded a finding that the witnesses examined on behalf of complainant admitted that though there was a lapse of about three months from 20.5.2004 to 25.8.2006, when the meter reading was taken by the officers of the complainant at no point of time any report was made about absence of seal on the meter. The Trial Court has considered this 2 circumstance showing that there was no tampering of the meter. There are several other admissions from the witnesses of the complainant, which have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court for recording a finding of acquittal. Added to all these, it is clear that a bill to the tune of Rs.4,20,510/- for the theft in question was served on the respondent/accused. That bill was put to challenge by respondent/accused before the Consumer Forum which set aside the said bill under order dated 20.1.2005 and, thus, negated the demand under the said bill. The complainant then preferred appeal before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai vide appeal No.494/2005. That also came to be dismissed on 26.7.2005, confirming the judgment of the Consumer Forum. This certainly is a factor against the applicant/complainant. I do not find any reason to take any other view than the one taken by the Trial Court for acquittal. Leave sought for by the present applicant is, therefore, refused. Criminal Application is dismissed. JUDGE ssw