R.S.A.No.3849 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3849 of 2008 Date of Decision : 06.10.2009 Roop Ram ...Appellant Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for declaration challenging the recovery of Rs.76,402/- was dismissed. The said notice was said to be wrong and incorrect. In the written statement, it was pointed out that on 15.4.1999, the premises of the plaintiff was checked by the officials of the Nigam and it was found that body of the meter was loose and hole was made by tampering the body. X-ray film enters the meter body and stops the disc. One seal was also found broken and thus the electric supply was disconnected from LT line and the checking report was prepared. A memo was issued to the plaintiff on the same date to recover a sum of Rs.64,970/-, but the plaintiff failed to pay the same. Therefore, the demand cannot be said to unjustified. Learned trial Court decreed the suit, inter alia, holding that the plaintiff has been acquitted in a criminal case of theft of electricity vide order dated 9.7.2004 Ex.PA. It was found that though the decision of the R.S.A.No.3849 of 2008 2 criminal Court is not binding upon the Civil Court, but the said judgment cannot be ignored. It was noticed that the defendants has not produced all the relevant documents before the criminal Court. The plaintiff has put the signatures on the documents furnished to him by the defendants, but it is not clear to him that these documents are of recovery of penalty imposed upon him. Consequently, the suit was decreed. However, learned first Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in an appeal filed by the defendants. It was found that the amount has been ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in terms of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as held by the Full Bench of this Court in M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala 2004 (2) PLR 101. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred is not tenable. It is also contended that the Sub Divisional Officer has admitted in his statement that he was not present at the time of inspection nor he is aware of the fact that the meter was sent for inspection or that the same was defective. Therefore, the demand raised by the respondents is unjustified. The judgment in M/s Ranbaxy's case (supra) is not applicable in the present case as what has been held by the learned first Appellate Court is that in terms of Section 158 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. In M/s Ranbaxy's case (supra), it was held that the dispute settlement mechanism set up by the Punjab State Electricity Board does R.S.A.No.3849 of 2008 3 not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The issue raised in the aforesaid case was materially different then the findings returned in the present case. Still further, the business premises of the plaintiff was inspected on 15.4.1999. The checking memo bears the signatures of the plaintiff on the same day. On account of the defects found in the meter and reported in the checking report, a demand was raised. The appellant has not disputed that the checking report is incorrect in any manner. Admittedly, the Sub Divisional Officer was not part of the checking team. Therefore, his statement is not material to rebut the presumption attached to the officials acts in the normal course of the official duties. Thus, the checking report, which bears the signatures of the plaintiff cannot be ignored by the Civil Court. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been acquitted in the criminal Court, therefore, the demand raised is not tenable. The acquittal in the criminal case is only relevant for the purpose of absolving the appellant of an allegation of theft of electricity. The civil liability of tampering with the electricity meter and to pay the demand on account of such tampering does not stand absolved by acquittal in the criminal case. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 06.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE