Officials of the petitioner conducted a checking on the premises of the respondent on 23.12.2002 between 5:40 p.m. to 6:25 p.m. and found that the respondent was using old meter instead of electronic meter which had replaced the old meter. The old meter was sent to M & T Lab, Karnal for verification which on verification found that there was glass of meter through which an x-ray fill could be easily inserted to stop the disk of the meter to abstract energy dishonestly -2- by artificial means. Complainant was asked to deposit Rs.2,44,075/-. Challenging the demand so made respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and quashed the demand. Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner/opposite party filed the appeal before the State Commission which has dismissed the same by the impugned order. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the lab report was got prepared by the petitioner in the absence of the respondent. That notice was required to be given to the respondent informing him about the time and the date of checking of the meter in M & T Lab. That the petitioner could not show any variation in the consumption reading of the respondent prior to the date of removal of the meter or thereafter. Relying upon earlier decision, it was held that mere existence of a gap between the glass and the body of the meter could not be taken as conclusive unless anything was found in the disk of the meter. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Old meter had been replaced by the electric meter. Petitioner was -3- required to inform the respondent about the date and time of the testing of the meter by the M & T Lab. Admittedly, petitioner did not inform the respondent about the time and the date on which the meter was to be tested in the M & T Lab. Petitioner had also failed to prove that there was no variation in the consumption reading of the complainant prior to the date of removal of the meter or thereafter. Mere existence of gap between the glass and the body of the meter could not be taken as a conclusive case of theft of energy unless anything was found inserted in the meter to stop the disk of the meter. It is not the case of the petitioner that anything was found inserted in the meter to stop the disk of the meter. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. | 
