JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner is the owner of Plot No. 10-D, Block E-15, Shatabdi Vihar, Sector 61, NOIDA having purchased the same for residential house. An electricity connection of a contracted load of 7.5 KW was sanctioned in the said premises by the respondent-Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. The Rate Schedule applicable to the premises for residential/domestic purposes is LMV-1. The petitioner let out the said plot to the working girls through Nestway Technologies Private Ltd. which is a company engaged in the business of building a technology platform, facilitating rental services to the owner of the house. The petitioner also entered into a license agreement with the tenants of the premises. 2. The inspection was carried out in the premises of the petitioner on 19.12.2016. A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 20.12.2016 for theft of electricity under Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the allegation that a private girls hostel was being run and managed by the petitioner in the premises which is a commercial activity and thus it ought to be billed under Rate Schedule LMV-2. The provisional assessment bill was issued to the petitioner which was challenged by him by filing a Writ Petition No. 1161 of 2017 which was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 11.1.2017 by making following order : “The petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken by the Executive Engineer, Pachimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. in disconnecting the electricity supply. It is stated that an inspection was carried in the premises of the petitioner on 19.12.2016. It was revealed that a “private boys hostel” was being run. A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 20.12.2016 for theft of electricity under Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the power supply to the premises of the petitioner was also disconnected. Sri. Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that a provisional assessment bill of Rs. 1,74,725/- has been issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in fact, the electric supply was being used only for residential purposes and the stand of the Department that it was used for commercial purposes is not correct. Sri. Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that a provisional assessment bill of Rs. 1,74,725/- has been issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in fact, the electric supply was being used only for residential purposes and the stand of the Department that it was used for commercial purposes is not correct. It will not be appropriate for the Court to examine the action of the respondents at this stage when the petitioner can file objections to the provisional assessment bill. However, if the petitioner deposits 50 % of the amount mentioned in the provisional assessment bill, the power connection of the petitioner shall be restored. The petitioner may also file an objection to the provisional assessment bill within 15 days from today so that a decision can be taken. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.” 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed his objection before the Executive Engineer on 27.1.2017 and 50% amount of the provisional assessment bill was also deposited and the power connection was restored. 4. Thereafter a notice dated 4.3.2017, termed as final notice, was issued to the petitioner mentioning that the charges of theft of electricity was proved to be correct and the assessment made in accordance with the tariff of LMV-2 to the tune of Rs. 1,74,725/- was correct and the said amount be deposited within 15 days. Another copy of the same notice was served again on the petitioner on 17.3.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that without considering the objection filed by the petitioner to the provisional assessment and without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing, it appears that some final assessment has been made and the notice has been issued to deposit the amount. The same is in gross violation of the provisions of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act and Section 8.1 of the Electricity Supply Code. 6. Sri Anshul Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the subsequent notice dated 4.3.2017 challenged by the petitioner is only a provisional assessment. 7. We are not at all convinced with the arguments. Provisional assessment was made on 10.1.2017 which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1161 of 2017 and was disposed of by the Court vide order dated 11.1.2017. 7. We are not at all convinced with the arguments. Provisional assessment was made on 10.1.2017 which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1161 of 2017 and was disposed of by the Court vide order dated 11.1.2017. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, petitioner filed his objections against the said assessment. We do not see any ground or reason for the respondent authority to issue another provisional assessment as the provisional assessment bill had already been issued and objection had already been filed. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that without considering the objection, some final assessment has been made in their record by the respondent and without supplying copy of the said order, notices are being issued to the petitioner to pressurize him to deposit the said amount. 9. From the pleadings, it is clear that no notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has been accorded. Without considering the objections of the petitioner and without any opportunity of hearing and making any actual final assessment in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the petitioner is being pressurized to deposit the amount which was mentioned in the provisional assessment bill treating it to be final assessment by issuing notices. 10. Sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the 2003 Act provides that if on an inspection the Assessing Authority comes to the conclusion that consumer has indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the Assessing Officer shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity charges payable by such person or by any person benefited by such use. Therefore, the condition precedent to the provisional assessment under Section 126(1) is a conclusion by the Assessing Officer that the person concerned is indulged with unauthorized use of electricity. Such satisfaction cannot be permitted to be recorded on the mere vagaries of the Assessing Officer unless a fair opportunity of hearing in defence before the said authority is provided. 11. It is well-settled that principles of natural justice, unless excluded by the act in question or by necessary implication cannot be held to be inapplicable when a person is being indulged to the charge like unauthorized use of electric energy, which may, in some cases, also amount to investigation under Section 135 of the Act. 11. It is well-settled that principles of natural justice, unless excluded by the act in question or by necessary implication cannot be held to be inapplicable when a person is being indulged to the charge like unauthorized use of electric energy, which may, in some cases, also amount to investigation under Section 135 of the Act. At this stage, it may also be relevant to notice Clause 8.1 (a) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 which provides the procedure to be adopted by licensee for inspection, provisional assessment hearing and final assessment in case of theft of electricity under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. Clause 8.1(b), relevant for the purpose of this case, is being reproduced as under : “(i) Within 3 working days of the date of inspection, the designated Authorized officer shall analyse the case after carefully considering all the evidences like documents, facts on record, the consumption pattern, wherever available and the report of inspection. (ii) No theft case shall be booked for mere breakage of window glass or old seal of the energy meter. In such cases, if the average monthly consumption pattern for last one year is reasonably uniform as the assessed consumption (monthly), and there is no other prima facie evidence of theft/UUE found at the consumer premises, no further proceedings shall be taken for theft/UUE of electricity and the decision shall be communicated to the consumer under proper receipt within 7 working days of the date of inspection, and connection shall be restored through original meter after proper checking/resealing. The contents of such report recommending for dropping the case shall be communicated to the Special Court with a copy to the police station where the FIR was lodged. (iii) If the Assessing Officer of the licensee suspects that theft of Electricity has taken place (as defined under Section 135 of the Act), he will serve the provisional assessment bill alongwith show-cause notice to the consumer for hearing, giving 15 working days, under proper receipt. The notice shall invite objections in writing from the consumer, if any, against the charges and provisional assessment and require the presence of the consumer to answer to all the charges imposed by the licensee. The notice shall invite objections in writing from the consumer, if any, against the charges and provisional assessment and require the presence of the consumer to answer to all the charges imposed by the licensee. (iv) If, after hearing, the authorized officer finds that a case of theft has been established, the assessment shall be done for the energy consumption for past period as per the assessment formula given in Annexure 6.3 on [2 (two) times the rates as per applicable normal tariff to the purpose for which the energy is abstracted, used or consumed or wasted or diverted, whichever is higher and demand and collect the same by including the same in a separate bill. This is in addition to any civil/criminal proceedings that may be instituted as provided by the Act, and described in cl. 8.2(vii). (v) A copy of the order shall be served to the consumer under proper receipt and in case of refusal to accept the order or in absence of the consumer, shall be served on him under Registered Post/Speed Post. The Authorized officer may extend the last date of payment or approve the payment to be made in instalments on a consideration of the financial position and other conditions of the 16 licensee. The amount, the extended last date and/or time schedule of payment/instalments should be clearly stated in the speaking order.” 12. We do not find from the record that the respondent authority has followed the procedure prescribed by Section 8.1(b) inasmuch as there is nothing on record to indicate that after objection was filed, any notice was given to the petitioner for personal hearing as required by Section 8(b) (iii) of the 2005 Code. 13. From the above facts and discussions, it becomes evident that procedure prescribed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in Clause 8.1 of the 2005 Code issuing provisional assessment bill has not been followed at all as no opportunity was given to the petitioner for personal hearing nor there is anything on record to reflect that the objection filed by him was taken into consideration at all. Thus, the entire procedure adopted by the respondent is de hors the statutory provision. 14. Thus, the entire procedure adopted by the respondent is de hors the statutory provision. 14. The view being taken by us is fortified by various Division Bench jugments of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(6) ADJ 660 (DB), Kamil v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(6) ADJ 11 (DB) and Hazi Mohd. Yaseen v. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, 2011(10) ADJ 261 (DB). 15. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the respondent that the notices impugned in this petition have only been issued as a reminder to the petitioner which is merely a notice and no final assessment has been made till date. 16. Be that as it may, in case there is no final assessment as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner cannot be compelled to deposit the amount of provisional assessment. Without making final assessment after considering the objection and giving opportunity to the petitioner, he cannot be compelled to deposit any amount. In such circumstances, the two impugned notices dated 4.3.2017 issued by respondent No. 2 are not liable to be sustainable and are hereby quashed. 17. The writ petition stands allowed. It shall, however, be open to the respondent to proceed with the final assessment proceedings in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Electricity Code. —————— [2017(6) ADJ 349] ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT BEFORE : PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. DINESH SINGH ....Revisionist Versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ....Respondents (Criminal Revision No. 1311 of 2007, decided on 10th January, 2017) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 340—Consolidation Court—Powers to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. for an offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 476 Penal Code—Held, Civil Court, Criminal Court, Revenue Court and Consolidation Courts had jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. [Paras 6, 7 and 8] Result; Order Accordingly. Counsel : V. Singh for the Revisionist; A.G.A. for the Respondents. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was moved by one Chet Narain Singh before the Court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Varanasi in which prayer was made for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against Sheetala Prasad and other persons for offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 465, 468, 471, 476 IPC. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was moved by one Chet Narain Singh before the Court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Varanasi in which prayer was made for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against Sheetala Prasad and other persons for offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 465, 468, 471, 476 IPC. After hearing, said Court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Varanasi had rejected the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. on the ground that consolidation Court has no powers under Code of Criminal Procedure to initiate such proceedings. 2. Against said order dated 25.8.2004 passed by the Court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, said Chet Narain Singh had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2004 (Chet Narain Singh v. Assistant Settlement Officer and others), that was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 8.2.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Varanasi with finding that trial Court had not committed error in exercise of its jurisdiction. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of two lower Courts, present revision has been preferred by one Dinesh Singh who is son of late Chet Narain Singh. 4. From perusal of record, it is found that one affidavit was filed on behalf of OP No. 2 to 6 alleging the age of two persons as 23 and 24 years. The Chet Narain Singh side felt that said affidavit regarding age of two persons was incorrect, therefore he moved application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the deponent of said affidavit. 5. Said affidavit was sworn by only one person namely OP No. 2 Sheetala Prasad son of Harkhu Singh. Therefore there was no propriety for prosecuting other persons named in application of Chet Narain Singh, even if contents of said application would have been correct. 6. So far matter relating to prosecution of Sheetala Prasad is concerned there appears no finding of Court concerned (Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation), till now that Sheetala Prasad had sworn false affidavit on any point. Unless there is any specific finding of Court concerned in regard to commission of offence mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. the complaint should not be filed and powers for initiation of proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. should not exercise. It appears that the application of Chet Narain Singh was slightly premature, which was filed before passing of any order regarding finding of alleged commission of any overt act by Sheetala Prasad. It appears that the application of Chet Narain Singh was slightly premature, which was filed before passing of any order regarding finding of alleged commission of any overt act by Sheetala Prasad. Therefore the finding of lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal is found not erroneous. 7. Inspite of above mentioned findings, this ground mentioned in order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 25.8.2004 is found legally incorrect that his Court has no jurisdiction to exercise powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 345 specifically provides that civil, criminal or revenue Courts can exercise such rights under Section 195 read with 340 Cr.P.C. if concerned offences have been found committed during proceedings of the case before such Court. Consolidation Courts also decide the matter that have final effect for revenue Courts. After the completion of consolidation proceedings, the revenue Courts step into shoes of consolidation Courts. Consolidation Courts also possess same power in this regard, relating to Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C., which the revenue Courts possess. 8. If any such alleged overt act appears to have been committed as mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C., then civil, criminal, revenue or consolidation Courts will have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, this revision stands disposed of.