THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.302 of 2004 Dated 17th June, 2010 Between: M/s.M.G. Brothers, Ananthapur. …Petitioner And The Chief Electrical Engineer (Operation), Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy Counsel for respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for APTRANSCO The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash the proceedings No.CGM/OP/CPDCL/DE-II/F.20ATP17/2037 dated 03.12.2003 issued by respondent No.1, by which he has confirmed proceedings No.SEA/HYD/F/ATP-23/SAH9072/D.No.1850 dated 16.04.2002 issued by respondent No.2. I have heard Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner is a consumer of the respondents engaged in performing job works of various kinds of automobiles. The petitioner is holding a service connection under L.T. category III bearing No.ISC 6902. On 07.03.2000, respondent No.4 has inspected the petitioner’s premises and found the following incriminating features: “3 PVC cables black cables cut and insulation pealed out before the LTCT meter box fixed with the meter i.e., on F.T. side. All the 3 cuts are insulated taped (black). On one of the cable R.Ph. insulation tape bit was still available along with black insulation tape PVC. Aluminium cables with incriminating mark are out and preserved.” On the basis of the abovementioned features noticed during inspection, respondent No.4 made a provisional assessment for Rs.4,60,363/-. The petitioner was required to pay and has accordingly paid 50% of the said provisional assessment amount. Later, respondent No.2 held an enquiry into the final assessment of the alleged loss suffered by the respondents on account of the alleged pilferage. By his order dated 16.04.2002, respondent No.2 assessed the loss at Rs.1,77,968/-. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which was confirmed by respondent No.1 by his order dated 03.12.2003. These two orders of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are assailed in this writ petition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly advanced two contentions, namely, the competent criminal Court has acquitted the accused in the criminal case by giving a finding that there was no possibility of the petitioner indulging in pilferage and that the quantum of electricity assessed by respondent No.2 as confirmed by respondent No.1 was improper. The learned standing counsel opposed the above two contentions and submitted that the final assessment made by respondent No.2 and confirmed by respondent No.1 are inconformity with the terms and conditions of supply and therefore, they do not call for any interference by this Court. As regards the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the competent criminal Court acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. The act of pilferage gives rise to both civil and criminal liabilities. As far as the criminal liability is concerned, the degree of proof is much more stringent than the proceedings pertaining to civil liability. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused cannot be convicted. As fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal Court acquitted the accused by giving them benefit of doubt. There is no provision under the Electricity Act, 2003, or any other enactment preceding the said Act which absolves the consumers of their civil liability following the findings of the criminal Courts in criminal proceedings. In my view, the findings rendered in the assessment proceedings cannot be obliterated on the basis of the judgment of a criminal Court. In this view of the matter, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance and the same is accordingly rejected. With regard to the contention relating to the quantum of assessment of the pilfered electricity, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the recorded consumption for the period from 1995-1996 to 1999-2000, which shows that the average consumption varied between 25,400 and 38,500 units per year. Respondent No.2 assessed the loss at 42,056 units per year. In my opinion, there is not much disparity between the recorded consumption and the theoretical consumption arrived at by respondent No.2 and the same is not that wide warranting this Court’s interference. While making assessment, an element of guesswork is always involved and therefore, there is bound to be some disparity between the recorded consumption and the assessed consumption. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in appeal over the orders passed by the assessing authorities. Unless this Court is satisfied that the approach of the assessing authority is perverse or assessment is made overlooking relevant material or taking into consideration irrelevant material, this Court will not interfere with the assessment proceedings undertaken by the authorities of the licensee. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has paid excess amount, the respondents may be directed to adjust the same in future consumption bills. As this request is reasonable, the respondents are directed to adjust the excess payment made by the petitioner towards future consumption bills, if it was not already done. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the direction given above. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th June, 2010 GHN