of Sales Regulations and also instructions of PSEB and further monetary compensation on account of deficiency in its service.<br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint are that complainant was having electric connection bearing A/c No. DA22/0281 installed in his house at ward No.4, Bholath, District Kapurthala and has been paying electricity bills to the opposite parties regularly. It is alleged that some unknown persons who alleged themselves as employees of the opposite party Board visited his house on 21/1/2008 and demanded illegal gratification from his son in his absence to oblige their seniors in the electricity department or else threatened his son to face dire consequenes. It is further alleged that he received notice No. 77 dated 24/1/2008 alleging therein pilferage of electricity being committed by him and to deposit amount of Rs. 44570/- within seven days on the plea that employees of PSEB detected pilferage of electricity on 23/1/2008. The allegation of pilferage of electricity is false and malafide as no checking was ever conducted by officials of the Board nor pilferage of electricity was ever committed nor any copy of checking report was supplied to him. Therefore, it is alleged that opposite party Board is guilty of deficiency in service and malpractices for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed. <br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared , controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim.. It is however, pleaded that complainant has no cause of action and that opposite party is perfectly justified to recover amount of Rs. 44570/- vide notice No.77 dated 24/1/2008 on account of pilferage of electricity detected by inspecting team headed by SDO Sub Division, Begowal on 23/1/2008 and mode of theft of electric energy was by way of back feeding i.e. bye-passing the meter after joining wire from PVC with Kitkat and after removing the grip of Kitkat and by stopping the meter. A separate complaint was also sent to SHO Police Station Bholath for registration of the case vide memo No.83 dated 25/1/2008. TDCO No. 57/66895 dated 24/1/2008 was issued for temporary disconnection but the complainant had not responded to the notice and the amount was charged in the bill vide sundry item No.13/107/64. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavits and documents Ex.C1 to C5.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R5.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for complainant has vehemently urged before us that opposite party PSEB is guilty of deficiencyin service by illegally slapping the provisional order for recovery of rs.44570/- and violation of Sales Regulations and CC No.53/2006 under sub clauses (e) and (g) and entire proceedings were conducted unilaterally. On the other hand it has been counter-argued by learned counsel for the opposite party Board provisional assessment order Ex.R4 dated 24/1/2008 for recovery of penalty charges of Rs.44570/- is perfectly justified on account of pilferage of electricity.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties.. From the perusal of pleadings of the parties, it is clearly elicited charged of pilferage of electric energy has been levelled against complainant by the opposite party vide checking report Ex.R3 dated 23/1/2008 that he indulged in theft of electric energy by way of back feeding i.e. bye-passing the meter after joining wire from PVC with Kitkat and after removing the grip of Kitkat and by stopping the meter. It has also been specifically pleaded in para-1 of the affidavit Ex.R1 of Er.Mohinder Ram AEE and also in para-2 of the written statement that checking observations were also recorded in the checking register at 54/388. Complainant, however, refuted these allegations being false, baseless and unfounded. No doubt Sales Regulation No.43.1 says that consumer shall be guilty of theft of energy and deemed to have committed theft within the meaning as defined in Indian Penal Code or dishonestly abstraction as referred to in Condition No.22 of Conditions of supply and Section 125 of the Electricity Act,2003 or through any artificial means not authorised by the Board. Therefore, charge of theft of electricity being a criminal offence has to be established atleast by preponderance of evidence . In the instant case, opposite party has simply placed on the record checking report uncorroborated with any independent evidence much less to speak of any official record. Firstly there is no signature of complainant or even of any representative on the checking report as he was alleged to have declined to sign it. In that eventuality it is mandatory under sub clause (e) of CC No.53/2006 to paste copy of inspection report on the conspicuous place in/outside of the house of the consumer; simultaneously inspection report was also required to be sent to the person under registered post. There is also no proof of service of provisional order Ex.R4 upon the complainant. There is no collateral evidence of PVC wire allegedly used for stealing energy. Moreover, there is no affidavit of inspecting officer to support alleged checking report Ex.R3 except affidavit of Er.Mohinder Ram AEE Ex.R1. He has simply narrated the incident about pilferage of electric energy allegedly detected by SDO Sub Division Begowal namely Er.Jaswinder Singh. Therefore, no sanctity can be attached to the affidavit of Mohinder Ram AEE who has formally proved checking report without having any first hand knowledge of the checking nor checking report was signed by him. On the other hand allegation of the complainant is supported by affidavit of Satish Kumar Ex.C2, affidavit of Ashok Kumar Ex.C3 that on 21/1/2008 some unknown persons who alleged themselves as officials of the Board threatened son of the complainant to extract illegal gratification or face dire consequences. They further alleged that no checking, whatsoever, was done by the opposite party in the premises of the complainant as alleged nor there was possibility of conducting checking in the premises of the complainant after 8.30 PM in extreme winter season. The consent memo Ex.R2 as relied upon by the opposite party has also been assailed as concocted document. Therefore, we find glaring infirmities in the checking by opposite party to establish charge of pilferage of electricity against complainant and further infringement of rules prescribed in instructions and Sales Regulations.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we quash impunged provisional assessment order vide memo dated 24/1/2008 Ex.C4 being illegal, null and void . Opposite parties are further directed to refund to the complainant amount of Rs.5000/- deposited by the complainant in terms of the stay order dated 7/2/2008 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation with further monetary compensation of Rs.5000/- for deficiency in service and causing mental agony and physical harassment besides cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( a.K. Sharma )<br /> 15-7-2008 Member President.