JUDGMENT: The substantial question of law that was framed by this Court at the time of admission was whether as per Sec.26 of the Indian Electricity Act, the Electrical Inspector alone has to decide whether the meter in question is correct or faulty. Both the appeals arise out of suits relating to the dispute regarding the consumption of energy. The factual, details may differ, but otherwise the matters to be decided in these second appeals are similar. 2. Both the appellants have flour mills. They were allowed a certain quantity of energy for consumption depending on the sanctioned loan. Over a period, it was found that the consumption was much below and therefore, the Electricity Board conducted an inspection. On inspection, it was found that an artificial hole was made in the meter and a foreign material was inserted therein so as to arrest the meter thereby recording a lower consumption of energy. Prior to the filing of suits out of these second appeals arise, there have been writ petitions as well as statutory proceedings. It was only thereafter the appellants, exhausting all remedies open to them, filed the present suits challenging the demand as null and void and for injunction. 3. Both the Courts below held that theft of energy was proved. They relied on the evidence of D.W.1, an Assistant Executive Engineer, who had found the insertion of foreign body and the presence of an artificial hole in the meter. The evidence of the appellants’ witnesses also show that they were satisfied that the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly and properly. Both the Courts below were justified that the appellants had no case and dismissed the suits. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the Courts below erred in relying on the evidence of the Assistant Executive Engineer, who is not an authority who should decide when a difference or dispute arises regarding a meter. A reference was made to Sec.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act in short). 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the Courts below erred in relying on the evidence of the Assistant Executive Engineer, who is not an authority who should decide when a difference or dispute arises regarding a meter. A reference was made to Sec.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act in short). Sec.26(6) reads thus: “Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-Sec.(1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity.” Reliance was placed on the judgment reported in Mohd. Rafi v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2000)3 M.L.J. 293 , where this Court has held that when the procedure laid down makes it mandatory for the meter to be verified only by the Electrical Inspector, non-compliance with such a procedure would render the demand defective. 5. The learned counsel for the Electricity Board, however, would submit that Sec.26 of the Act was not attracted to this case at all. The Electrical Inspector would be called upon to decide a dispute if the meter itself, namely, the apparatus, was not correct. If there was a defect in the apparatus resulting in faulty readings, then either on the complaint of the consumer or at the instance of the Board, the meter would be verified and inspected by an Electrical Inspector, who shall, thereafter, decide whether the apparatus was correct. The Electrical Inspector is not called upon to decide the dispute, which relates to tampering. The learned counsel submitted that in the judgment reported in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Basantibai, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 71, this issue has been decided and therefore, the question of law does not really arise in these second appeals. 6. To decide the question, one must first understand what is meant by a correct meter. The learned counsel submitted that in the judgment reported in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Basantibai, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 71, this issue has been decided and therefore, the question of law does not really arise in these second appeals. 6. To decide the question, one must first understand what is meant by a correct meter. But it is not necessary to look further then the Act itself since the explanation to Sec.26 deals with what is a correct meter. "Explanation: A meter shall be deemed to be "correct" if it registers the amount of energy supplied, or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, within the prescribed limits of error, and a maximum demand indicator or other apparatus referred to in sub-Sec.(7) shall be deemed to be "correct" if it complies with such conditions as may be prescribed in the case of any such indicator or other apparatus." Therefore, correctness used in the Section relates purely to the correct registering of consumption of electrical energy the indicator or the apparatus that is used. It does not deal with meters which have been damaged or tampered by the wilful action of the consumer. In this case, in fact, criminal proceedings were launched against the consumer, but they were given the benefit of doubt. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Board, the degree of proof required in criminal proceedings is greater and since it is very unlikely that the Board will find an eye witness for the actual theft, one has to take into account the circumstances and arrive at a conclusion as to whether there was deliberate tampering and consequent theft of energy. In this case, the senior officer has seen the meter for himself and found an artificial hole, where it should not be and has also found insertion of foreign material and therefore, the only inescapable conclusion is that the consumer has attempted to interfere with the normal working of the meter so as to acquire to himself an illegal benefit. In Mohd. Rafi v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2000)3 M.L.J. 293 , the case related to the meter which was struck and therefore, the assessor himself noted in the defective registry that there was a defect in the meter. In Mohd. Rafi v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (2000)3 M.L.J. 293 , the case related to the meter which was struck and therefore, the assessor himself noted in the defective registry that there was a defect in the meter. It is in that factual background that this Court held that without compliance of Sec.26(6) of the Act, demand cannot be made on the basis of a meter, which is struck or otherwise faulty. 7. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Basantibai, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 71 actually decides the question. In that case, body seal of the meter had been broken and it was burnt and it was urged on behalf of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, the appellant before the Supreme Court, that this dispute cannot be decided by the Electrical Inspector. The Supreme Court held that "the Electrical Inspector is only called upon to determine whether the meter is correct or not. But if there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer by tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the meter or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, such a dispute does not fall within the purview of sub-Sec.(6) of Sec.26 of the Act. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court referred to a Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court, where it was held that tampering with the fittings on the meter would be a dispute referred to in Sec.26(6) of the Act, but expressed their inability to accept this view and held that "it is obvious from the provisions of sub-Sec.(6) of Sec.26 of the said Act that the dispute whether a meter is correct or faulty would come under the said provisions and not the dispute regarding tampering of meter." 8. In this case, there was a deliberate tampering by piercing a hold in the meter and inserting a foreign body and in the enquiry conducted by the authorities, it was found that it had been deliberately done and there was theft of energy. No grievance has been voiced by the appellants regarding the correctness of the enquiry. All that is now raised is the applicability of Sec. 26(6) of the Act. No grievance has been voiced by the appellants regarding the correctness of the enquiry. All that is now raised is the applicability of Sec. 26(6) of the Act. For the above reasons, it is found that Sec. 26(6) of the Act will not apply to the present case and therefore, the substantial question of law is answered in negative. The second appeals are dismissed. No costs.