IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.4652 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.2.2010 Balvinder Kumar ....Appellant Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & ors. ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.13970-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.13971-C of 2009 in/and R.S.A.No.4652 of 2009 The plaintiff is in regular second appeal to assail the findings of the courts below. He was found committing the theft of electricity. Pursuant to the checking report, which was affirmed by the appellant, who had appended his signatures thereto, recovery notice which included penalty was issued to him which was challenged by way of civil suit. Both the courts below determined that since the appellant himself was associated with the checking of the meter which was found to be off and the inspecting team also found that he was R.S.A.No.4652 of 2009 (O&M) -2- committing the theft of energy by affixing direct PVC wire on the main line and consequently was found indulging in the theft of electricity; and returned a finding against the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not associated with the checking of the meter and therefore the report is faulty. He further contended that no independent witness was enjoined with the proceedings. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the courts below cannot be faulted with. The checking report completely shatters the case of the appellant. It has come in evidence that the appellant had appended his signatures after the notice had been issued to him and he accepted the same without any protest. In these circumstances, it cannot be stated that the allegations of theft are false when the same has been established in the report. Besides, these are pure questions of fact. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed. 26.2.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss