IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 819 of 2009(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11810/2005 Dated 07/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- GEORGE THOMAS, HOTEL NITHYA, MEDICAL COLLEGE JUNCTION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM. 4. SUB ENGINEER IN CHARGE, ELECTRICAL SECTION, GANDHI NAGAR. MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.819 of 2009 in W.P.(C.) No.11810 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of August, 2009 O R D E R Review is sought contending that the view taken in the judgment, that acquittal of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 judgment rendered by the Criminal Court was not one extending the benefit of doubt, but was a honorable acquittal. On this basis, it is contended that once a person is honorably acquitted, he cannot be levied penalty on the allegation of dishonest, abstraction of energy. It is therefore argued that the demands impugned in the writ petition ought to have quashed. 2. The learned counsel made reference to the judgment in detail, and a reading of the judgment would show that the entire discussion is whether the conviction of the petitioner as per the judgment of the Trial Court could be sustained, applying the standard of proof required in a Criminal case. On that basis, the case was appreciated and finally after assigning reasons thereof, the R.P.No.819/2009 -2- Court extended the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. If so, the contention raised to justify review of the judgment is unsustainable. Not only that in the decision J.M.D.Alloys Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others (2003(5) SCC 226), the Apex Court has held as:- “----- That apart, the purpose of a trial under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act is entirely different and the object is to punish and sentence the person who is alleged to have committed the offence. The trial of an accused in a criminal case can have no bearing in the matter of assessment made in accordance with the tariff of the value of electricity dishonestly abstracted or consumed. Therefore, the contention raised on the basis of alleged acceptance of the final report in the criminal case has absolutely no merit.” 3. The law thus laid down by the Apex Court also supports the view that the out come of a criminal case is immaterial, when liability is sought to be fastened on a consumer for abstracting the energy. In view of the above, the review is only to be dismissed and I do so. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that subsequent to the judgment, a fresh demand has been issued, and that the petitioner has been called upon to make R.P.No.819/2009 -3- remittance, and that he is informed that if the remittance is not made, power supply will be disconnected. Obviously, the demand now issued has to be treated as a provisional one in terms of the provisions contained under Section 126 of the Act, and the consumer is entitled to raise his objection to such a demand. Therefore, until the petitioner files his objection, and the matter is considered finally, there cannot be any disconnection for non- payment of the amount demanded in pursuance to Ext.P4 in the writ petition. Therefore, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to file his objection to the provisional demand, within two weeks from today, and thereupon, the Assessing Officer concerned will decide the matter, with notice to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, no coercive action shall be initiated, based on the provisional demand. It is made clear that all other contentions are left open. The review petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg