Petitioner was opposite party before the District Forum. Complainant has an electricity connection bearing account No.DL 11/1230. On 12.8.2005 at about 12.45 p.m. Sh. Ram Kumar, J.E. along with other staff members inspected the premises of the complainant/respondent and found that respondent was committing theft of electricity by making a cut in PVC service line of the meter. Checking report was prepared by him. The respondent did not sign the same. The total load was found to be 3.133 KW. Taking it to be theft of energy, notice was issued on 14.8.2005 creating a demand of Rs.16,000/-. Aggrieved by this, respondent filed the complaint alleging that he had never made a cut in the PVC wire and committed theft of energy. District Forum allowed the complaint and set aside the impugned demand. Petitioner was directed to adjust the deposited amount of Rs.16,000/- in future bills. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 91 days along with an application for condonation of delay. The only reason given for condonation of delay was that the file was moving from table to table to get the sanction to file the appeal. State Commission did not condone the delay as it was not satisfied with the explanation given. It was held that the petitioner had failed to show adequate and sufficient cause to condone the delay; that the petitioner had failed to explain the movement of the file on day-to-day basis. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission on this point. Petitioner was required to explain each day’s delay, which the petitioner failed to explain. We endorse the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 91 days which was three times over the statutory period of 30 days given for filing the appeal. On merits, the State Commission has recorded the following finding : “Even on merits, there is no force in the appeal. It is the case of the opposite parties that when Shri Ram Kumar, J.E., in the company of other officials had visited the premises of the complainant on 12.8.2005, a cut was found in the PVC service line near the meter. The Inspecting Team did not found that any other wire was connected with the cut of the PVC wire so as to indicate that electricity energy was being used by passing the meter. Simply because the cut in the PVC wire was noticed per se cannot be construed as a ground to hold that the complainant was indulging in the commission of theft of energy. Needless to say the charge of theft of energy is like a criminal charge and it is the duty of the opposite parties to establish that the complainant was abstracting the energy dishonestly. Even no consumption data prior to the date of checking and after the checking has been placed on record so as to establish by way of corroborative evidence that the complainant was indulged in the commission of theft of energy.” On merits as well, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Petitioner failed to prove that the respondent had made the cut in the PVC service line to abstract the energy dishonestly. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. | 
