We have heard learned counsel for the parties. -2- 2. The revision petition is filed against the concurrent judgments of the Fora below. 3. The consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum and the assessment made by the petitioner was held as illegal. The petitioner appeal was dismissed by the State Commission. The case of the petitioner was that the respondent committed theft of electricity and used energy by extracting the same by using magnet to slow down pace of the meter. The contention of the petitioner was that the respondent was liable to pay the amount because the offence has been compounded. That was rejected by the Fora below for the reason that that the assessment procedure Under Section 126 was not duly followed. 4. The only question to be determined is whether Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 could not come into play in case of theft of electricity by use of artificial means. Perusal of Section 126 reveals that the explanation appended to sub-section (6) clarifies the expression nauthorized use of electricity It would be useful to quote sub-section (6) and the explanation appended to clause (b) (iii) as under: (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) ssessing officermeans an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government; (b) nauthorized use of electricitymeans the usage of electricity- -3- (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority or license; or (iii) through a tampered meter; or 5. Now, considering the explanation as given in sub-clause (b) (i), it is clear that use of electricity by any artificial means or through a tampered meter is covered under sub-section (6) clause (b) (iii) of Section 126. Therefore, we find it difficult to persuade ourselves to accept the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 126 will not be applicable at all in case of theft of electricity and therefore, it is not necessary to issue the provisional assessment along with a notice to the consumer before determination of liability. In other words, denial of opportunity to the consumer, prior to final determination of the assessment, will make the the demand invalid. Considering the legal position, we do not find any substantial error committed by the State Commission and the District Consumer Forum. 6. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with not costs.