Judgment Heard. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 2 of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 03-02-2014 passed in Writ Petition No.8856/2012. 2. One private complaint was filed against the appellant in regard to tampering the meter before trial Court. Appellant deposited the amount of Rs.23,48,935/-. On the ground of depositing the amount, learned trial Court dropped the proceedings and exonerated the appellant. Following order has been passed by the trial Court: ^^ifjoknh }kjk vf/koDrk Jh vrqy lDlSukA vkjksih e; Jh vfHkyk[k flag HknkSfj;k vf/kŒA vHk;i{k }kjk jkthukek is'k ughaA vHk;i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fofo/k vkijkf/kd izdj.k dzekad 1728@2011 ,o a 6919@2011 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24-1-12 ds ikyu esa vkjksih dh vksj ls ifjokn fujLr djus gsrq is'k fd;k x;kA vkosnu i= ij lquk rFkk izdj.k i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k esa vHk;i{k }kjk ;g Lohd`r :i ls O;Dr fd;k x;k gSa fd vkjksih dh vksj ls ifjoknh ds }kjk foyhu dh xbZ laiw.kZ jkf'k 23]48]935@& :i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk pqdk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl izdj.k esa vkjksih dk fopkj.k vkxs tkjh j[kus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha jg tkrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ifjokn fujLr fd;k tkuk rFkk vkjksih dks nks"keqDr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSaA okn&fopkj vkosnu i= ln~Hkkouk iw.kZ gksus ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA rFkk ifjokn i= fujLr fd;k tkdj vkjksih dks nks"keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA vkjksih ds tekur eqpyds Hkkj eqDr fd, tkrs gSA^^ Before that, appellant had filed a writ petition before the Writ Court which was disposed of with the direction that appellant can raise the objections in relation to assessment before learned Special Judge. Writ Court has passed the following orders in Writ Petition No.1940/2008: “The petition of the petitioner is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may raise all the grievance with regard to assessment before the Special Judge and after recording the evidence of all the officers/employees of the Electricity Board, the Court may pass an appropriate order with regard to assessment done by the respondents. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” 3. From the order of trial Court, it is clear that appellant has been acquitted from the charge on the ground that he had deposited the amount. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” 3. From the order of trial Court, it is clear that appellant has been acquitted from the charge on the ground that he had deposited the amount. Thereafter appellant again filed a writ petition before the Writ Court questioning the liability of payment of Rs.23,48,935/- that has been dismissed by the Writ Court. 4. In our opinion, the Writ Court has rightly dismissed the petition because the trial Court had exonerated the appellant on the ground that he has deposited the amount that order was not challenged by the appellant and after securing his acquittal from the trial Court, he had again challenged the liability, which has rightly been rejected by the Writ Court. 5. In view of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed.