Officials of the petitioner had checked the premises of the respondent/complainant and during the checking they found that the meter was running slow by 24.8%. Taking it to be a case of theft of energy, penalty of Rs.4,48,627/- was imposed on the respondent. Being aggrieved, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and set aside the penalty. It was held that the petitioner had not sent the meter to M&T lab for checking to find out as to whether the meter was running slow or not. That the petitioner had failed to lead any evidence to show that the respondent was stealing energy. Petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The State Commission has recorded the following finding : “We have gone through the impugned order and taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and are of the view that it is admitted case of the Nigam that in case where the meter is found slow, the matter has to be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector, which procedure has not been adopted in the present case. Furthermore, as per sale circular No.27 of 1996, if the meter is found burnt/dead stop or inaccurate, then the account of the consumer shall be overhauled and charges shall be payable on the basis of a period of not exceeding six months immediately proceeding the date of testing of the meter. But in the present case, the opposite parties have overhauled the account of the complainant taking into account the date of consumption from 3.2.2004 to 2.2.2005, which itself in violation of the sales circular No.27 of 1996 and rules and regulations of the Nigam. In this view of the matter, we feel that since the opposite parties had acted in violation of the rules and regulations and sale circular No.27 of 1996 issued by the Nigam, the District Forum was justified in accepting the complaint and granting the relief to the complainant as noticed above.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent was stealing energy. No merits. Dismissed.