The premises of the respondent was inspected by officials of the petitioner company on 8.2.2006 when it was noticed that allegedly M&T seals of the meter were tampered and the same was suspected to be fake/duplicate. The meter was removed and sent to M&T lab which as per lab report, seal was found fake. Pursuant to aforesaid inspection the officials of the petitioner company imposed penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- on respondent suspecting pilferage of energy and service connection was also severed. However on deposit of Rs. 1,33,335/- i.e. 33% of penalty imposed on respondent, supply was restored by petitioner company. Refuting accusation made against him about pilferage of energy merely based on suspicion of tampering of meter, a consumer complaint came to be filed by the respondent with the District Forum which on appraisal of pleadings of the parties while upholding claim of respondent directed petitioner company to refund Rs. 1,33,335/- deposited by respondent alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 20,000/- was also levied on petitioner company by District Forum. When matter was carried in appeal by petitioner, the State Commission too having noticed infirmity in conduct and activity of the petitioner company while upholding finding of the District Forum, reduced interest to the extent of 6% p.a. on deposit made by the respondent. 2. The State Commission has taken notice of the fact that when alleged tampered meter was tested in the lab on 10.03.2006 a notice was sent to the respondent on 08.03.2006 which was received by respondent not before 17.03.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when respondent did not participate when meter was to be tested in the lab, taking precaution another notice was sent on 13.04.2006. However submission made on behalf of the petitioner does not find support from observations made by the State Commission. The other limb of argument pressed on behalf of petitioner is that since respondent was very much present at the time of inspection of the premises, he cannot refute genuineness of the finding of the inspection report. It is not in dispute as it is submitted at bar that even at the second time when notice was issued the meter was tested in the lab in absence of the respondent. However, there is no evidence about acknowledgement of second notice said to have issued by petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the Bench has placed on record sales circular No. U-54/2007 and instructions contained therein can be profitably extracted : “No case for dishonest abstraction or theft of electricity shall be framed only on account of seal(s) on the meter and/or meter cubicle is missing or tampered or fake or breakage of glass window or existence of hole in meter, loose glass, cut in the incoming PVC Cable or any act, where the evidence is not available at site etc. and are referred to as “suspected theft cases” unless corroborated by consumption pattern of consumer, valid tamper information and such other evidence which may substantiate that theft of energy was being actually committed”. There is no gain saying the fact that there has been no evidence on behalf of the petitioner company that any artificial means or offending articles were seized from site which could suggest unauthorized abstraction of energy by respondent. Imposition of penalty on respondent on mere suspicion of tampering of seals leaves a lot to be desired. 3. Having considered findings of fora below and rate of interest having been reduced by State Commission, we find that impugned order did not require interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition in the circumstances being without merit is dismissed but with no order as to cost.