1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Second Appeal No.71 of 2009. Amritlal S/o Shiokasandas Maheshwari. Vs. Maharaashtra State Electricity Distribution Com. Ltd. Thr. Executive Engineer. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri N. S. Bhattad, Advocate for the appellant. Coram : A.H. Joshi, J. Dated : 06th APRIL, 2009. 1. Heard Learned Advocate for the appellant. 2. The Trial Court had decreed the plaintiff's suit which decree has been reversed by the First Appellate Court. 3. The appellate Court recorded a finding that: “15........................................................................... The Learned Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and pointed out in para 24 in the Judgment that “There is no iota of evidence against the Plaintiff that he committed the theft. On the contrary, admittedly Plaintiff was discharged in criminal case before J.M.F.C., 2 Amgaon. Hence, no theft is proved.” It is needless to say that though the Respondent was discharged from the theft case, but that does not mean that Appellant was having no right to recover the bill amount on account of theft of energy, when it comes under the category of civil remedy.” [Quoted from page 12 of Second Appeal Paper Book] 4. What is attempted to be shown is that “Defect in connection has crept in”. On the other hand, what has revealed is tampering. When tampering is proved, it is a case where it cannot be treated as “Defect in registering the consumption” due to the defect in the meter. 5. It is settled legal proposition as it did under the earlier enactment, that any party namely either licensees i.e. Board or the consumer, whosoever disputes the correctness of the register ( record of consumption in the meter) has to raise a challenge. Present is not the case of that nature. The plaintiff attempted to camouflage his defence as “Defect in the meter”, but on fact did not dispute the fact that seals were broken and connections altered. 3 6. This Court has to be mindful to the law that the finding of fact done by the first appellate Court are final at that level. These findings cannot be looked into or gone in unless those are shown to be perverse or contrary to law to such magnitude to be able to describe it one alterable on a decision on a substantial question of law. 7. In the present case, though various questions of laws are formulated and pressed, those are not involved in the case, and entire controversy rotates around dispute regarding appreciation of evidence, which dispute cannot be gone in in a second appeal. 8. The appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. JUDGE /Muley/