JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner, who runs an ice factory was granted a power connection of 32 H.P. sometimes on 10th or 11th May, 2006. A checking was done on 24th May, 2006 in which according to the allegations made by the respondents the petitioner was indulging in power theft, therefore, the power connection was disconnected. Civil and criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. In the criminal proceedings the police authorities submitted a final report in the matter, which has been accepted by the Judicial Magistrate. However, on the civil side a provisional assessment for consumption of electricity for 13 days was made and a sum of Rs. 22,428/- was assessed towards electricity charges. The power connection has not been restored on the ground that the petitioner is liable to pay minimum charges for a period of six months whereafter a permanent disconnection is deemed i.e. prior to the date of permanent disconnection. 2. We have heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nripendra Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the final report has been submitted by the police authorities in the Court and the same has been accepted by the Judicial Magistrate which would mean that the petitioner was not involved in the act of power theft, therefore, disconnection was illegal and the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability of the alleged charges which is being demanded by the respondent-authorities for reconnecting the electricity connection. 4. Sri Nripendra Misra, learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that merely because the final report has been filed in a criminal proceedings which has been accepted by the Judicial Magistrate, it would not mean that the petitioner was not involved in power theft as there has been no adjudication. He further submitted the petitioner is liable to pay the amount provisionally assessed towards electricity charges. He further submitted the petitioner is liable to pay the amount provisionally assessed towards electricity charges. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others, (2003) 5 SCC 226 wherein in paragraph 13 the Apex Court has held that the trial of an accused in a criminal case can have no bearing in the matter of assessment made in accordance with the tariff of the value of electricity dishonestly abstracted or consumed and the contention raised on the basis of alleged acceptance of the final report in the criminal case has absolutely no merit. He further submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay not only the provisionally assessed amount but also the minimum charges for reconnecting the electricity. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties and find that it is not in dispute that in the criminal case the final report has been filed by the police authorities, which has been accepted by the Judicial Magistrate. However, that will not absolve the petitioner from the civil liability regarding payment of dues under the Electricity Act for the alleged act of illegal consumption of electricity so far as the provisional assessment stands. In the case of J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court has held as under : “13........In our opinion, the mere acceptance of final report by the Magistrate cannot amount to a finding by the criminal Court that theft of electricity was not committed. The accused was not even summoned, no charge was framed nor was any evidence recorded. In such a situation, it cannot be held that the criminal Court has recorded any finding to the effect that the petitioner has not committed theft of electricity. That apart, the purpose of a trial under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act is entirely different and the object is to punish and sentence the person who is alleged to have committed the offence. The trial of an accused in a criminal case can have no bearing in the matter of assessment made in accordance with the tariff of the value of electricity dishonestly abstracted or consumed. Therefore, the contention raised on the basis of alleged acceptance of the final report in the criminal case has absolutely no merit.” 6. The trial of an accused in a criminal case can have no bearing in the matter of assessment made in accordance with the tariff of the value of electricity dishonestly abstracted or consumed. Therefore, the contention raised on the basis of alleged acceptance of the final report in the criminal case has absolutely no merit.” 6. Sri Kshitij Shailendra has submitted that the petitioner has not been served with a copy of the provisional assessment so far which has been first time filed before this Court. 7. Be that as it may, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 within two weeks from today and if such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period the appellate authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law without raising the question of limitation. The question of liability of payment of minimum charges would be dependent upon the order which may be passed in the appeal. ————