Learned Counsel for Respondent has filed vakalatnama. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Complainant-Respondent filed complaint before the District Forum and Learned District Forum allowed the complaint anddirected Opposite Party to refund Rs. 76,915/- based on provisional assessment with interest. Appeal filed by Opposite Party was dismissed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order dated 8.6.2010 against which this Revision Petition has been filed. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that provisional assessment was made on the basis of theft of electricity and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction, hence, Revision Petition be allowed. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that as no criminal proceedings have been initiated, hence, theft of electricity cannot be presumed. Perusal of record reveals that Petitioner raised bill on average basis. Petitioner has specifically pleaded in his written statement that on vigilance check, hole was found in the main body of the meter and its seal was tempered which prima-facie amounts to theft of electricity and whether criminal proceedings have been initiated or not, is immaterial. In the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. VS. Anis Ahmad- III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC); Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to deal with the matters wherever there is allegation of theft of electricity. In such circumstances, Revision Petition is allowed and impugned order dated 8.6.2010 passed by Learned State Commission in appeal No. 2064 of 2008- Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. VS. Brijender Singh and order of District Forum dated 19.9.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 385 of 2007- Bijender Singh Sharma VS. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr., is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with liberty to the Respondent to approach appropriate authorities under Indian Electricity Act for redressal of his grievances, with no order as to costs. | 
