Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioner filed revision petition against the impugned order dated 17-05-2012 passed by learned State Commission by which while accepting appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint and quashing demand of Rs.59,532/- raised by opposite party-petitioner was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that demand notice should have been issued under Section 126 instead of 135. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that by typographical error Section 135 has been mentioned whereas it should have been under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. In such circumstances, it may be held that notice issued by respondent was under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. This complaint pertains to offence committed u/s 135 Indian Electricity Act and against the assessment made by assessment officer for the theft of electricity. In the light of judgment passed by Honle Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012 .P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad this complaint is not maintainable before District Forum under Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed and impugned order dated 17-05-2012 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 1568 of 2011 S.D.O. PSub Division, UHBVNL Vs. Raj Karan is upheld and complaint stands dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy available to him before the appropriate forum.