CAV ORDER Petitioner, Budhpriya Ganesh has prayed for quashing of FIR of Naubat Pur P.S. Case No. 68/2013 registered under Sections 135, 138 of the Electricity Act („the Act? for all future references). 2. Naubat Pur P.S. Case No. 68/2013 has been registered on the written report submitted by Basuki Shankar Rajak, Assistant Electrical Engineer on 21.03.2013 disclosing the fact that, Budhpriya Ganesh, who bears Consumer No. NP 4137 (industrial) premises was inspected on 21.03.2013 under the leader-ship of Executive Engineer and found the electrical energy being consumed stealthily by means of tampering meter and on account thereof, caused loss to the Electrical Department to the tune of Rs. 2,80,624/-. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that registration of FIR happens to be bad, illegal and is suffering from malice and grudge. It has further been submitted that on a prayer made on behalf of petitioner himself, time to time, there is enhancement of load right from 5 HP to 21 HP, the last one for which inspection was made on 28.07.2012 without any complaint. Therefore, allegation of tampering of meter is nothing but an imaginary story propounded by the Electrical Department to satisfy their personal vendetta. It has further been submitted that for reading of the meter, meter reader is being deployed, whose function, apart from reading of meter, is also to inform the Electricity Department with regard to any sort of sabotage committed by the consumer during course of consumption of electricity by means of using external application or bypassing, tampering the meter. No such information is there. It has further been submitted that on a representation made by the petitioner the competent authority of the Electricity Department had considered the case inconsonance with the quantum of loss and after having analytical approach thereupon the amount Rs. 2,80,624/- has been reduced to 1,90,540/- which the petitioner had already paid. So submission is, it is not the case of theft, rather even admitted for the sake of argument, happens to be of unauthorized use of electricity as there was lacking of dishonest intention. It has also been submitted that even after repeated request, the Department failed to test the meter to find out whether there was any sort of external application making the meter idle. 4. It has also been submitted that even after repeated request, the Department failed to test the meter to find out whether there was any sort of external application making the meter idle. 4. In the aforesaid background, it has been pleaded that it is not a case of stealthily consuming the electrical energy rather in worst case, it may be a case of unauthorized consumption in terms of Section 126 of the Act and so the case is found squarely covered under 2013 (2) PLJR 499 (Amitabh Sinha v. State of Bihar). 5. Lastly, it is further submitted that it is a fit case whereunder FIR of Naubat Pur P.S. Case No. 68/2013 deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned AC to SC-26 opposed the prayer and further submitted that whenever there happens to be presence of prima facie case on bare perusal of FIR, then in that event, the FIR should not be disturbed. It has further been submitted that from plain reading of FIR, it is apparent that petitioner was consuming electricity stealthily by tampering the mater which is punishable in the eye of law in terms of Section 135 of the Act. It has also been submitted that from Annexure-14, filed on behalf of petitioner, it is evident that the Inspecting Team had visited the premises of the petitioner on 21.03.2013 and prepared inspection note identifying physical condition of the meter along with ancillary wherein, there happens to be specific disclosure that the seal of meter was broken. It has further been submitted that finding of the Single Bench that the signature over inspection memo happens to be mere acknowledgement has been negativated under Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 365/2010 vide order dated 27.08.2010 wherein, it has been held that presence of signature over signature memo is also considered to be the evidence with regard to physical feature whatsoever found by the Inspecting Team. 7. It has also been submitted that the amount appertaining to Rs. 1,90,540/- has already been deposited by the petitioner and in the aforesaid background, the Department is willing to enter into compromise, in case, composite fee is deposited by the petitioner. 8. Annexure-14 (inspection memo) is annexed with third supplementary affidavit. From Column-5 thereof, which deals with meter diagram indicating the seals position & their condition, coming to impression on seals, the same is found broken. 8. Annexure-14 (inspection memo) is annexed with third supplementary affidavit. From Column-5 thereof, which deals with meter diagram indicating the seals position & their condition, coming to impression on seals, the same is found broken. The status of inspection report is to be perceived in the light of order dated 27.08.2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 365 of 2010 (The Bihar State Electricity Board v. M/S Suryadaya Industries Pvt. Limited & Ors.) arising out of CWJC No. 15653/2008, wherein it has been held:- “We do agree with the learned Advocate. The Statement of the state of affairs made in the inspection report carried out in presence of the consumer and existence of such state of affairs cannot be challenged by the consumer.” 9. Consequent thereupon, presence of broken seal of meter is found out of challenge and its status, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, is to be duly acknowledged. However, the amount has been deposited. Department has shown eagerness to compromise the case, in case, composite fee is deposited. 10. In the aforesaid event, petitioner is at liberty to get the instant case compromised after depositing the composite fee. 11. On account of presence of Annexure-14, further guided by order dated 27.08.2010 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 365 of 2010 makes the difference of factual aspect with regard to decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner as reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 499 (Amitabh Sinha v. State of Bihar). 12. In that case, there was absence of inspection memo as well as no tampering of meter was alleged rather the meter reading was found deficient one when perceived through tongue method. 13. Consequent thereupon, with the aforesaid liberty, the instant writ petition is disposed of.