This revision arises out of the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission) dated 20.9.2016 in first appeal No.1146/2015 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint alleging that he is a bona-fide consumer of electricity connection No.1020664 corresponding to meter No.971838 and service connection No.CJI 424 provided by the opposite party. It was alleged that the connection was commercial and the petitioner never defaulted in payment of bills. Despite that the opposite party disconnected the connection on 7.7.2007 on the allegation of theft of energy for which a criminal case was instituted at police station Barasat as case No.435 dated 7.4.2007 under Sections 135 & 138 of Electricity Act. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in that case on 11th September, 2014. It is alleged that despite acquittal of the petitioner, opposite party has failed to restore the electricity connection which amounts to deficiency in service. 3. On being served of the notice, the opposite party/respondent contested the consumer complaint by denying the allegations in the written statement. It was pleaded by the opposite party that the electricity connection was disconnected because it was a case of power theft and the petitioner had failed to pay the electricity dues amounting to Rs.11,54,002/-. 4. The District Forum on appreciation of the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner/complainant within one month, failing which it was ordered that opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day as punitive damages till the compliance of the order. 5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent/opposite party approached the State Commission, West Bengal. The State Commission vide impugned order, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anis Ahmad (2013) 8 SCC 491 took the view that since this was a case involving allegation of power theft, the Consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 6. This has led to filing of the revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that so far as allegation of power theft is concerned, it was no more there as the petitioner had already been acquitted of the charge of power theft. 8. We are not convinced with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 39 in the case of Anis Ahmad (supra) has observed as under: - “Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers the assessing officer to make assessment in case of “unauthorized use of electricity". It provides that if on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in "unauthorized use of electricity", he shall assess the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefitted by such use, the Section reads as under: "126.Assessment.- (1) If on an inspection of any place or premises or after inspection of the equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person, the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgement the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. (2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or in charge of the place or premises in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The person, on whom an order has been served under subsection (2) shall be entitled to file objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before the assessing officer, who shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such person, pass a final order of assessment within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment, of the electricity charges payable by such person. (4) Any person served with the order of provisional assessment, may, accept such assessment and deposit the assessed amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him. (5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of inspection. (6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to (twice) the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,- (a) “ assessing officer” means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be, designated as such by the State Government; (b) “ unauthorised use of electricity” means the usage of electricity – i) by any artificial means; or ii) by a means not authorised by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or iii) through a tampered meter; or iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized; or v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized.” 9. In view of the above, it is clear that wherever there is an allegation of power theft, the complaint under Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. As the judgment of the State Commission is based upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 10. It is pertinent to note that otherwise also the consumer complaint is barred by limitation for the reason that admittedly the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on 7.7.2007. Therefore, if at all the complainant was aggrieved of disconnection of his electricity, the cause of action to file consumer complaint arose on 7.7.2007. The complaint has been filed in the year 2014 i.e. almost five years beyond two years period of limitation for filing of consumer complaint under Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to get of this situation by arguing that the petitioner did not file consumer complaint because prosecution under Electricity Act was pending and when he was acquitted in the criminal trial by judgment dated 11.9.2014, he immediately took steps to file the complaint. The pendency of criminal trial, in our view, is no reason for not filing the consumer complaint and the outcome of criminal trial, by no means, extend the period of limitation. Thus, on the count of limitation also the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the instant case in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed. | 
