Judgment Tarkeshwar Nath, J. 1. This appeal by the Chief Engineer of the Patna Electric Supply Company Ltd. is directed against a judgment of acquittal by the second Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in a case relating to the theft of electrical energy and other offences under the Indian Electricity Act and the rules framed under that Act, The respondent was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dinapore, under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec.39 of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for sis months. He was convicted under Sec. 44 as well of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200.00 and, in default three months simple imprisonment, There was a further conviction under Rule 188 Clause (b) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 and, in default to undergo one months simple imprisonment. The respondent was acquitted in respect of the charge under Sec.201 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal by the respondent, the second Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him in respect of all the charges which were held by the trial Court to have been established. Hence the Chief Engineer has preferred this criminal appeal under Sec. 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The Patna Electric Supply Company Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the PESCO) supplied electrical energy to a large number of consumers in Patna, Dinapore and other places. The respondent was the proprietor of Messrs. Ramnaresh Singh Surendra Singh. Gola Road, Dinapore Cantonment, and he was an industrial power consumer (hereinafter to be referred to as the consumer) of the PESCO. He was supplied energy at medium pressure under Account No. 9290(7/73/2) and his mill was situated on the Gola Road, Dinapore Cantonment. The Chief Engineer noticed that for sometime past the gap between the number of units generated and the number of units sold had increased considerably over the normal difference usually known as units unaccounted for and this led to a suspicion that theft of energy was being committed on a large scale. He deputed some of his officers to make careful inspection of the meters and seals of various consumers, particularly those supplied in the Mills. He deputed some of his officers to make careful inspection of the meters and seals of various consumers, particularly those supplied in the Mills. After inspection, it was reported to him that consumers had tampered with the seals of the meters in order to have an access to the mechanism of the meter and to prevent it from recording actual consumption of energy and evade payment for the entire energy consumed . The respondent had a 20 Horse Power mill consisting of two motors, each of 10 Horse Power capacity with 12 oil Ghannies which should normally consume about 150 units of energy per day, even if the mill would be worked only for one shift of 8 hours, but the average advancement of the meter indicated only 1788 units per month on an average. On 18-6-1958 Sri S. Chatterjee, an Assistant Engineer (Mains) of the PESCO inspected the installation of the consumer and found the seal broken and the sealing studs and the nuts provided on them tampered with. On the following day the Chief Engineer personally inspected the installation of the consumer and noticed the seals on the meter cover broken and the sealing studs and nuts tampered with. On 20-6-1958 Sri K. Prasad, Assistant Electrical Inspector, inspected the seal and the meter along with the Assistant Engineer and he also found the seal broken and the meter tampered with. There was thus in existence an artificial means tor abstraction of energy and that was a prima facie evidence of a dishonest abstraction according to Sec.39 of the Indian Electricity Act (Act 9 of 1910). The respondent had tampered the meter and that also was an offence under Sec. 44(c) of the said Act. The breaking of the seal as well was penal under Rule 138 of the Indian Electricity Rules. 1956. The PESCO had suffered considerable loss on account of the dishonest action of the respondent and hence it became necessary to bring this matter to the notice of the authorities. The petition of complaint containing these facts was filed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dinapore, on 12-7-1958 and the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on the same date. The Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the respondent (accused). 3. The petition of complaint containing these facts was filed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dinapore, on 12-7-1958 and the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on the same date. The Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the respondent (accused). 3. The respondent was put on trial and he was charged for the offences under Sec.39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and Rule 138 of the Indian Electricity Rules. Apart from this, he was charged under Sec.201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the evidence of the commission of the said offences to disappear with the intention of saving himself from legal punishment. 4. The respondent pleaded innocence and he filed a somewhat lengthy written statement. He alleged that neither the seals nor the studs nor the nuts of the meter in question were found tampered with at the time of the various inspections and asserted that the allegations of the officers of the PESCO were absolutely false. There was no theft of energy at all and the daily consumption of electrical energy could not be 150 units for eight working hours. The average consumption of energy was between 1700 to 1800 units per month during the year preceding June 1958 and that indicated that there was no theft at all of the energy. According to him, the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant were interested and their evidence was not reliable for -proving the guilt. 5. On a consideration of the evidence, the Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that an artificial means existed for preventing the meter from duly registering the consumption of energy and there was dishonest consumption of electrical energy. He thus held the respondent guilty under Sec.39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 44 and Rule 138 and convicted and sentenced him in respect of those offences as stated above. He gave the respondent benefit of doubt in respect of the charge under Sec.201 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the convictions and sentences, the respondent preferred an appeal. He gave the respondent benefit of doubt in respect of the charge under Sec.201 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the convictions and sentences, the respondent preferred an appeal. The second Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the conclusion of the trial Court that the meter was found in the condition alleged by the prosecution on 18-6-1958, but he took the view that the respondent was not responsible tor that condition of the meter. He further held that the artificial means did not seem to have been created by the respondent and, in this view of the matter the respondent was not guilty under Sec.39. He further Found that the prosecution failed to prove improper use of energy by the respondent or the breaking of the seal by him. Accordingly he allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences of the respondent. Hence this appeal has been filed by the present Chief Engineer. 6. It would be proper to mention certain tacts which appear from the evidence before dealing with the points raised by Counsel for the parties. The entry (Ex. 18) in the meter changing register indicates that one Narain Lal of Gola Road, Dinapore, was the consumer of electricity and meter No. 7056 was supplied in his mill. This meter was changed and a new meter bearing No. 226 was issued For him on 20-4-1957, but before supplying this new meter it was properly tested These dates have been mentioned in the meter test register (Ex. 24), The account number ^as 9290. Narendra Nath Ghosh (P. W. 5) was the senior meter tester in PESCO and he stated that meter No. 226 was tested on 16-4-1957 by K.L. Bhatacharya under his supervision. This was a 3 phase 4 wire-meter. At the time of testing the meter there was no dust in it and the meter was dust proof After testing, the rnetcr was sealed. Kanhai Lal Bhatacharji (P. W 7) was the Assistant meter tester of this Company and his evidence is that be had tested meter No. 226 on 16-4-1957 He made an entry (Ex. 24) in the meter test register. Abdul Hafiz (P W 8), a clerk of this Company, stated that on 20-4-1957 a meter was removed from the installation of Narayaa Lal under account No. 9290 and meter No. 226 was fixed In his installation on that very day. 24) in the meter test register. Abdul Hafiz (P W 8), a clerk of this Company, stated that on 20-4-1957 a meter was removed from the installation of Narayaa Lal under account No. 9290 and meter No. 226 was fixed In his installation on that very day. The then Chief Engineer (P. W 1) made out at the trial that the respondent had purchased the oil and Chhanti Mill on 31-1-1957 and subsequently there was an agreement (Ex. 9) on 17-7-1957 between the PESCO on one hand and Messrs. Ramnaresh Singh burendra Singh of the Gola Road, Dinapore cantonment, in respect of the supply of electrical energy for the purpose of industrial power and fight and fan. It appears from this agreement that account No. 9290 was in respect of industrial power, whereas account No. 9291 was in respect of lights and fans. The respondent signed this agreement as the proprietor of Messrs. Ramnaresh Singh Surendra Singh and it has not been contested that he was not the proprietor or the consumer. 7. It will be now relevant to consider as to how these offences came to light. The then Chief Engineer (P. W. 1) has deposed that monthly accounts of the unite generated, units sold and losses were being kept. There could be some normal loss due to transmission and other causes, but the percentage of loss was 14 to 15 per cent. of the units generated. He noticed loss beyond this percentage and a monthly chart was prepared indicating the percentage of loss. As there was an increase in the percentage of loss, he suspected theft of energy and accordingly he deputed the Assistant Engineer (P. W. 6) to check the industrial installations in the mills. Meters and seals were checked and he received reports that in many cases seals were broken or tampered with and studs and nuts were loosened. By doing all these, one could get access into the mechanism of the meter and can find out some means to stop the disc from rotating. Meters and seals were checked and he received reports that in many cases seals were broken or tampered with and studs and nuts were loosened. By doing all these, one could get access into the mechanism of the meter and can find out some means to stop the disc from rotating. A wire could be inserted for either stopping the disc from rotation or slowing down the movement of the disc and if the disc will not move the consumption of the current would not be recorded According to him, the respondent who was the proprietor of an oil mill was consumer of electricity of the PESCO and there was an agreement with him on 17-7-1957 This Company supplied him energy for the working of his mill and if the mill worked for eight hours, then 150 units of current were likely to be consumed. The consumption of energy by the said Mill was 1700 to 1800 units per month on an average. In view of his direction, Sri S. Chatterjee, Assistant Engineer (Mains) of the PESCO, inspected several mills of Dinapore including the installation of the respondent on 18-0-1958. The respondent had an oil mill and it had two motors of 10 Horse Power, each with 12 kolhus. He also stated that the normal consumption of -energy in this mill would be 150 units per day if the mill worked for eight hours a day. On inspection he noticed that the meter of this mill was located in a dark corner of the mill and the passage to go up to the meter was obstructed in various ways. The serial number of the meter was 226 under account No. 9290. On 18-6-1958 he took the index reading of this meter and it stood at 25176 The reading on 2-6-1958 as recorded on the meter card was 24164. On the date of inspection (18-6-1958) he found M.D.I. seals on the meter cover tampered with. The left top sealing nut on the stud was found sufficiently loosened and screwed up leaving the stud hole on the cover exposed. The witness said that by doing this the consumer had achieved a means to prevent the meter from registering the consumption at any time. He further found the iron clad cover on one of the cutouts removed. There was no seal on the terminal . cover of the meter and that was musing. The witness said that by doing this the consumer had achieved a means to prevent the meter from registering the consumption at any time. He further found the iron clad cover on one of the cutouts removed. There was no seal on the terminal . cover of the meter and that was musing. He informed the Chief Engineer the same day in the afternoon about this result of inspection and on 19-6-1958 he submitted a written report (Ex. 19) to the Chief Engineer. It appears from the report that on 18-6-1958 he had checked various installations in Dinapore area and with regard to this meter No. 226 his report was that both M.D.I. seals provided on top cover of the meter were tampered with. The top left sealing nut on the stud (through the cover) was found sufficiently loosened and screwed up leaving the stud hole on the cover exposed. He further mentioned that the I/C cover on one of the cutouts was noticed to have been removed and there was no seal on the terminal cover of the meter. On 19-6-1958 the Chief Engineer (P. W. 1) personally inspected the installation in the mill of the respondent along with P. W. 6 and the Meter Inspector (P. W. 4) and the evidence of P W, 1 is that he also found the seals on the meter cover broken and the nuts and the studs of the meter loosened. On 19-6-1958 P. W. 6 submitted another report (Ex. 20) and mentioned in that report that the index reading on 18-6-1958 in account No. 9290 of the respondent was 25176, whereas the said reading on 19-6-1958 was 25333, meaning thereby that there was advance of 157 units in one day, On 10-6-1958 P. W. 6 submitted a report to the officer-fn-charge, Dinapore Police Station, about the result of his inspection of meter No. 226 fixed in the mill of the respondent He requested the Officer-in-charge to take necessary action against the respondent in that matter and a copy of that report has been marked exhibit 21. On 20-6-1958 Sri Kamla Prawd (P. W. 2), Assistant Electrical Inspector, Govermment of Bihar, also inspected the installation in the mill of the respondent and his evidence is that he found one of the seals of the meter cover tampered with and the left hand top sealing nut loosened so that one could get access into the mechanism of the meter.He has well prepared a report and submitted it to the superior authorities. On 20-6-1958 P. W. 6 submitted another report (Ex. 22) after the joint inspection along with P. W, 2 was over and this indicates that the index reading on 19-6-1958 was 25333, whereas on 20-6-1958 it was 25503 showing an advance of 170 units in one day. On 10-7-1958 P. W. 6 again inspected this installation along with the Meter Inspector and found the meter in the same condition in which he had found it on 18-6-1958. On that day he took the index reading which stood at 27723 and he mentioned it in the report (Ex. 23). The Meter Inspector (P. W. 4) found on inspection of the meter on 19-0-1958 that the seals of meter No. 226 were tampered with and one nut on the top left hand side was loosened and raised. The stud hole of the meter cover was exposed and there was a gap. He was of the view that a thin wire could be passed into f he mechanism of the meter in order to retard or stop the functioning of the meter. His evidence is that the disc of the meter rotates if the energy is consumed and on the rotation only of the disc it was possible to record the consumption of energy. It appears from the judgment of the lower appellate Court that a contention on behalf of the respondent was raised that P. W. 6 himself had tampered with the Companys seal or loosened the left hand top sealing nut to expose the stud hole in order to make out a case against him, but this contention was repelled. That was not the stand, however, in this appeal. The evidence of these officers of the PESCO and the various reports prove beyond doubt that on 18-6-1958 the M.D.I. seals on the meter cover were found to have been tampered with and the said meter was found in the condition as alleged by P. Ws. 1 and 6. That was not the stand, however, in this appeal. The evidence of these officers of the PESCO and the various reports prove beyond doubt that on 18-6-1958 the M.D.I. seals on the meter cover were found to have been tampered with and the said meter was found in the condition as alleged by P. Ws. 1 and 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge as well came to this conclusion and this finding has not been assailed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the aforesaid finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and urged that the appellant had proved beyond doubt the existence of artificial means for abstraction of energy and that existence itself was a prima facie evidence of a dishonest abstraction according to the provisions of Sec.39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 , which would be referred to hereafter for the sake of brevity as the Electricity Act. Section 39 read thus: "Whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code; and the existence of artificial means for such abstraction shall be prima facis evidence of such dishonest abstraction." This section envisages that it shall be deemed that theft as defined in Section 378, Indian Penal Code, has been committed, when any person dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy This section does not only provide as to what would constitute theft but it goes a step forward by laying down that the existence of artificial means for such abstraction shall be prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction. By a legal fiction the dishonest abstraction of energy would come within the purview of theft under Section 878 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsels contention was that the prosecution in the present case had proved by the evidence of competent witnesses that there was in existence artificial means for abstraction of energy The result was thai there was prima facie evidence of a dishonest abstraction by the respondent. He further urged that the prosecution having discharged the initial burden, the ultimate burden now lay on the respondent to show that the artificial means found by the officers of the PESCO were not for the purposes of dishonest abstraction. He fairly conceded that it was open to the respondent to discharge that burden and the presumption arising under Sec.39 was rebuttable one. He fairly conceded that it was open to the respondent to discharge that burden and the presumption arising under Sec.39 was rebuttable one. He, however, contended that the respondent in the present case never attempted in the Courts below to discharge that burden and had adduced no evidence on that point. I find great force in these contentions and the provisions of Sec.39 have been the subject-matter of interpretation in several cases cited by learned counsel for the appellant. In State of Bihar V/s. Parsuram Sao, 1963 BLJR 182 the authorities of the Patna Electric Supply Company Ltd. were informed that a 3 phase power meter was moving slowly, the incoming wire of the Centra] phase was interchanged with the outgoing wire of the phase and the terminal seal was tampered with. It was further found that the power meter in question was recording only 1/3rd of the total energy consumed on account of the aforesaid manipulation. Referring to Sec.39, S.P. Singh, J. observed as follows: " means which are unauthorised will come within the purview of artificial means as contemplated under the Act, and an abstraction of energy through that means will mean unauthorised abstraction. In the present case there can be no manner of doubt that the inter-change of the wires of the central phase was an artificial means, and the existence of such a means shall be prima facie evidence of dishonest abstraction. Under the provisions of this section, therefore, the prosecution has merely to prove the existence of artificial means for dishonest abstraction on the premises where the alleged offence has taken place. The burden would then shift to the accused to show that the artificial means on their premises wai not for purposes of dishonest abstraction in order to avoid a conviction. In the present case the artificial means did exist and it was used evidently with a view to benefit the owners of the mill, and therefore, they must be held guilty of the commission of an offence under this section." A similar question arose in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1959, H Krishna Murthy V/s. Durga Prasad, decided on 23-1-1963: (1953-2 Cri LJ 579) (Pat) along with other Government appeals and criminal revisions. The facts leading to that appeal were that on 18-6-1958 Sri S. Chatterjes had visited another mill on the Gola Road at Dinapore, known as Shankarji Mills and a 3 phase meter was installed in that mill. On inspection he found that the seals provided in the meter cover were tampered with and the top nut on the right side was loose and raised up, thereby exposing the corresponding stud hole. A lot of dust was found accumulated on the meter disc, on account of which its free movement was obstructed. The disc was not rotating on low load. The seals of one of the cutouts was found missing. The access to the meter was also found to be blocked by certain obstructions. Thereafter, the respondents of that appeal were put on trial and charges were framed under Sec.39 of the Electricity Act read with Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 44 of the Electricity Act and Rule 138 of the Electricity Rules. There was a charge under Sec.201 or the Indian Penal Code as well. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution clearly indicated the condition of the meter as found by the Assistant Engineer on inspection. A question arose on appeal by the Chief Engineer of PESCO against acquittal as to whether the existence of those artificial means for abstraction of energy could be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a dishonest abstraction. The provisions of Sec.39 were referred to and it was observed that the prosecution could not be expected to adduce direct evidence that the consumer was responsible for bringing into existence the artificial means of abstraction, and in the majority of such cases, the offence of theft of electrical energy could only be proved by circumstantial evidence. The provisions of Sec.39 were referred to and it was observed that the prosecution could not be expected to adduce direct evidence that the consumer was responsible for bringing into existence the artificial means of abstraction, and in the majority of such cases, the offence of theft of electrical energy could only be proved by circumstantial evidence. Where the consumer was shown to be in custody or control of the meter, he was undoubtedly the person who stood to profit by dishonest abstraction, user or consumption of electrical energy, and the existence or an artificial means or device of abstraction must inevitably lead to the conclusion that it was he who was responsible for having brought it into existence, and that would be sufficient proof of his guilt under Sec.39 of the Act, Another observation was that the inference of guilt arising from such circumstances may, no doubt, be rebutted, if the consumer was able to bring some material on the record to show that he had no personal knowledge of the existence of the artificial means of abstraction, which, for example, had happened at a time when he was out of touch with his business, either because he was ill or out of station at the relevant time. But in absence of any such material, the inference of his guilt under Sec.39 of the Act must be drawn from the chain of circumstantial evidence referred to in that case. The decision in the case of 1963 BLJR 182 was relied upon and the order of acquittal was set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to another unreported decision of this Court in Krishna Murthy V/s. Sohrai Lal, Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1961, DA 25-4-1963: (1964 (1) Cri LJ 468) (Pat), A substantial question arose for determination in that appeal as to whether the tampering in the meter constituted the creation of an artificial means for dishonest abstraction of electrical energy within the meaning of Sec.39 of the Indian Electricity Act, The evidence in that case indicated that the seal on the left side of the meter was broken, the top nut on the same side of the meter was loosened and screwed up and thereby the stud hole was exposed. The stud having been exposed, it was easy to interfere with the normal rotation of the disc of the meter, either by some mechanical means or by letting in dust or moisture inside the meter. Dealing with this point, G.N. Prasad J. observed as follows: "Therefore, the exposure of the stud hole is in itself the creation of an artificial means for dishonest abstraction of electrical energy, since, in an untempered state, the meter is sealed after fully tightening up the top nuts and thereby completely blocking the stud hole so as not to allow any external substance to have access inside the meter. It is the act of loosening the top nut, which has the necessary effect of exposing the stud hole, which brings about the existence of an artificial means for dishonest abstraction of electrical energy." The decision in the case of 1963 BLJR 182 was referred to and relied upon by the learned Judge. In Babulal Chaukhani V/s. Emperor, AIR 1938 PC 130 U was held that the user of electric current without the intention of paying was beyond question a dishonest user and that was all that was required under Sec.39 which created a statutory theft sufficiently established against a person who dishonestly abstracted consumed or used the energy. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to another Judgment of this Court in the State of Bihar V/s. Hari Das, Govt. Appeal No. 5 of 1962 dated 17-5-1963 (Pat). The Assistant Engineer of PEvSCO found on inspection of the meter in that case that there were scratches on the dial of the meter as also a hole on the top corner of the meter. The respondent of that case was charged for the offence under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec.39 of the Electricity Act and also under Sec. 44 of the said Act for the unauthorised use of electricity by tampering with the meter. He was convicted by the trial Court in respect of both the charges, but there was an acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence there was an appeal in this Court on behalf of the State of Bihar. There was a serious lacuna in the prosecution case inasmuch as there was no entry in the seizure list that a hole and scratches were found on the meter when it was seized. Hence there was an appeal in this Court on behalf of the State of Bihar. There was a serious lacuna in the prosecution case inasmuch as there was no entry in the seizure list that a hole and scratches were found on the meter when it was seized. There was no reliable evidence as to where the meter was kept after seizure. The defence in that case had suggested that the meter after seizure remained with the staff of the Electric Supply Company until it came to be produced in court. The Investigating Officer had used only the seal of the Company, when he kept the meter in a packet and the seal was made over to one of the prosecution witnesses. The Investigating Officer did not disclose as to where he sent or kept the sealed packet containing the meter. The police officer in charge of the court malkhana was not examined and, the relevant registers, either of the police station or of the malkhana were not produced to show as to when the packet containing the meter was actually sent to and received by the Police Officer in charge of the malkhana. In view ot these infirmities, the order of acquittal was upheld by this Court. The facts found in that case were not sufficient to justify a conviction but there is no infirmity" of that kind in the present case. Thus, the decision relied upon is of no assistance to the respondent, 11. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant and referred to above clearly support his contentions about the effect of the existence of artificial means for abstraction ot energy. The position thus is that the burden of proving the existence of artificial means for abstraction of energy lies on the prosecution and the moment that burden was discharged, it would be presumed that there was prima facie evidence of a dishonest abstraction. It is further clear that the burden would next shift to the accused to show that the said artificial means was not for purposes of dishonest abstraction. In the light of these principles, the facts of the present case have to be considered. The evidence discloses that the respondent was the consumer of the PESCO under account No. 9290 and ho had meter No. 226 for registering the consumption of energy. In the light of these principles, the facts of the present case have to be considered. The evidence discloses that the respondent was the consumer of the PESCO under account No. 9290 and ho had meter No. 226 for registering the consumption of energy. This meter was supplied in the said mill on 20-4-1957 after proper testing and sealing. The meter was placed in a dark corner and the passage to that corner was obstructed. On 18-6-1958 P. W. 6 inspected this meter and found M. D. I. seals on the meter cover tampered with. He further found that the left top sealing nut on the stud was sufficiently loosened and screwed up leaving the stud hole on the cover exposed. He also Found the iron clad cover on one of the cutouts removed and there was no seal on the terminal cover of the merer. P. Ws. 1 and 6 have further indicated that the meter being in that condition the consumer had achieved a means to stop the disc from rotation and to prevent the meter from registering the consumption of energy. The meter was in the custody of the respondent and he was responsible for keeping it intact. None else was likely either to injure the meter or loosen the nut or expose the stud hole by entering into his premises. The respondent was the only person to benefit from the dishonest abstraction of energy. I am thus of the view that the prosecution has discharged its onus of proving the theft of electrical energy as envisaged by the provisions of Sec.39 of the Electricity Act. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that even if the seals on the meter cover were tampered with and the left top scaling nut on the stud was sufficiently loosened and screwed up leaving the stud hole on the cover exposed, there was no actual proof of the existence of any artificial means for the abstraction of energy. He urged that no wire was found to have been let in or inserted under the disc in order to stop its normal rotation. This point was pressed before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge as well arid he observed that none of the witnesses had pledged his oath to say that he found any scratch mark on the disc. He urged that no wire was found to have been let in or inserted under the disc in order to stop its normal rotation. This point was pressed before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge as well arid he observed that none of the witnesses had pledged his oath to say that he found any scratch mark on the disc. He then mentioned that learned counsel for the PESCO was also conscious of that deficiency in the prosecution evidence and during the hearing of the appeal he made a submission that the Court should get the meter from the lower Court to examine for itself whether there was any such scratch mark or not. The Learned Judge observed that the meter was not seized when the offence was detected and it was seized long after during the course of the trial and no scratch mark was pointed out to the trial court. In those circumstances, be look the view that it was no use examining the meter for finding out the existence of any scratch mark on that meter. He then concluded that no scratch mark was found by the officers of the PESCO on the disc of the meter and that negatived the theory of insertion of a wire through the stud hole to check the movement of the disc or to retard or slow down its movement, It appears from the evidence of Sri D.N. Singh, an Honorary Magistrate (P W. 9) that in pursuance of the order of the Sub-divisional Officer he went to the said mill on 28-11-1958 for the seizure of meter No 226 and he seized it. He handed over the sealed meter box to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police for its proper and safe custody and his report of seizure has been marked exhibit 29. He handed over the sealed meter box to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police for its proper and safe custody and his report of seizure has been marked exhibit 29. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 1-11-1960 a petition was filed on behalf of the complainant in the trial court itself to open the said meter in presence of the parties, but the court did not pass any order on that petition, He further pointed out that a petition was filed in the trial court for summoning the Senior Electrical Inspector of the Government of Bihar and, in this manner his contention was that the complainant never felt shy of the opening of the meter and examination of it by the trial court at the initial stage of this ease, The meter not" having been examined from that point of view, it is not proper to make a surmise about the existence or otherwise of a scratch mark in the disc. But even assuming that there was no scratch mark, the question is as to whether all that was found by these officers of the PESCO about the tampering of the meter is sufficient for coming to the conclusion that artificial means existed for abstraction of electrical energy. I bave to refer once again to the judgment dated 25-4-1963 of Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1981: (1964 (1) Cri LJ 468) (Pat) inasmuch as a similar contention was raised in that appeal as well. The contention there on behalf of the respondent (accused) was that the mere exposure of the stud hole by loosening and screwing up the top nut did not constitute the creation of an artificial means for dishonest abstraction of electrical energy and it had to be further proved that some external objects, such as a thin wire or dust or moisture, had also been let in, causing the prevention of the normal rotation of the disc of the meter. This contention was repelled and it was observed that the only purpose for which one could think of tampering with the seals of the meter and exposing the stud hole by unscrewing the top nut was to have access inside the mechanism of the meter and as such the very act of exposing the stud hole as aforesaid constituted the creation of an artificial means for dishonest abstraction of electrical energy. G.N. Prasad, J. observed as follows: "Therefore, the exposure of the stud hole constitutes the creation of an artificial means or device for dishonest abstraction of electrical energy by having unauthorised access to the meter disc If the stud hole is kept exposed, then the meter ceases to be dust proof, and, therefore, even without inserting a thin wire through the exposed stud hole, one can impede the normal rotation of the meter disc by allowing dust to flow inside the meter by natural process. If the stud hole of a dust proof meter is kept exposed, then it is natural to expect that dust will automatically flow inside the meter and affect the free movement of the disc. Therefore, if a consumer wants to make a dishonest user of electrical energy, then all that he need to do is to loosen the top nut and keep the stud hole exposed, and by this means allow the dust to automatically flow inside the meter, causing the rotation of the disc to be retarded. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the very act of loosening the top nut, which necessarily exposes the stud hole, amounts to bringing into existence an artificial means for dishonest abstraction of electrical energy, and it is not necessary that it must further be proved that some external object or wire had also been introduced into the meter through the exposed stud hole." It appears from the evidence of Sri B.S. Ramaswami, the than Chief Engineer (P. W. 1), that by breaking the seal of the meter and loosening the studs and nuts one can get access into the mechanism of the meter and find out some means to stop the disc from rotation and by means of inserting a wire one could stop the movement of the disc or slow down its movement. The meter supplied in the mill of the respondent was dust proof and, according to the evidence of P. W. 1 no dust could enter into it so long the seal remained intact. P. W. 8 to well indicated that by tampering with the meter in question, the consumer had achieved a means to prevent it from registering the consumption of electrical energy. P. W. 8 to well indicated that by tampering with the meter in question, the consumer had achieved a means to prevent it from registering the consumption of electrical energy. The Meter Inspector (P. W. 4) as well deposed that through the gap a thin wire could be passed into the mechanism of the meter and the functioning of the meter could be retarded or stopped The position thus is that on exposing the stud hole the meter no longer remains dust proof and even without insertion of an external object, such as a thin wire, below the disc, the normal rotation of the said disc can he impeded, inasmuch as dust would flow inside the meter by natural process. That dust would vitally retard the free movement of the disc. The word "abstraction" means taking away, withdrawal; stealing. The left top sealing nut on the stud could neither be sufficiently loosened nor screwed up by itself. This nut was loosened and screwed up for exposing the stud hole on the cover and all this was done in order to abstract electrical energy. In other words, artificial device was adopted for the abstraction of energy. With respect, I am in agreement with the view expressed by G.N. Prasad J. and referred to above. 13. Another contention of learned counsel for the respondent was that, even according to the prosecution case there was in existence only partial artificial means for abstraction of energy and not complete. Accordingly, he urged that there was no offence under Sec.39 of the Electricity Act. In support of this, learned counsel referred to a few extracts from the judgment of the Chief Court in Delhi Electric Traction and Lighting Co. V/s. Ram Richhpal and Ham Gopal, quoted at page 295 by Mr. J.W. Meares in his book, The Law Relating to Electrical Energy in India and Burma (6th edition). It appears that in that ease two brothers were prosecuted by the licensee for theft of energy and were convicted and sentenced under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec.39. The conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge and then the case was carried to the Chief Court of Punjab. The facts found were that the insulation had been removed in three places from the wires at the main cut-outs, so that current could be obtained which would not pass through the meter. The conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge and then the case was carried to the Chief Court of Punjab. The facts found were that the insulation had been removed in three places from the wires at the main cut-outs, so that current could be obtained which would not pass through the meter. There was no evidence that either on the 17th or 18th, or indeed on any other date before or after the said dates, any of the Companys Officers saw a wire connecting one of the bare places on the wire which did not pass through the meter, so that it could be definitely said that artificial means for the abstraction of energy existed at any time at the house of the petitioners. It was not disputed on behalf of the prosecution that the uninsulated or bare places which were found on the 17th and 18th August on the two wires from the main cut-out could not be made use of by the consumer without the aid of a connecting wire for the purpose of abstracting the energy. In those circumstances, it was held that no artificial means existed for the abstraction of energy at the house of the petitioners which alone could have been deemed to be prima facie evidence of dishonest abstraction according to sec. 39 of the Electricity Act. It was observed that the words the existence of artificial means for such abstraction, used in sec. 39, means the eixstence of complete as distinguished from partial, Incomplete artificial means for the abstraction of energy. It is clear from the facts of that case that without the aid of a connecting wire energy could not be abstracted and, therefore, what the petitioners had done in that case did not amount to the existence of artificial means for abstraction of energy. The facts of that case are entirely different and the observations with regard to partial or complete means cannot be divorced from those facts. In the present case, I have already indicated that even without the insertion of any external thing in the meter the rotation of the disc could easily stop. 14. The facts of that case are entirely different and the observations with regard to partial or complete means cannot be divorced from those facts. In the present case, I have already indicated that even without the insertion of any external thing in the meter the rotation of the disc could easily stop. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that even if there was in existence artificial means for abstraction of energy, the prosecution had to prove as to against whom mere was prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction, inasmuch as there could be cases when some body other than the consumer was responsible for the dishonest abstraction. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, urged that in the present case it was the respondent who was the consumer and the meter in question was in his premises and in his custody. The consumer was the best person to explain as to who was responsible for the dishonest abstraction, but the consumer in this ease offered no explanation. The respondent was the most competent person to say as to who were the persons working in his mill, either as employees or in some other capacity. He knew it best if anyone else happened to break the seals of the meter or tamper with it in any manner. These facts, if any, were within his special knowledge. I thus do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent further urged that in a case where the prosecution was trying to rely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be such as to leave no room for doubt regarding the guilt and should exclude any other hypothesis and lead to an inevitable conclusion about the guilt of an accused. There cannot be dispute about this proposition. It is well settled that the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. The chain of evidence has to be so complete as not to leave a reasonable ground for a conclusion therefrom consistent with the innocence of the offender. It is well settled that the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt. The chain of evidence has to be so complete as not to leave a reasonable ground for a conclusion therefrom consistent with the innocence of the offender. Learned counsel developed this contention and urged that the possibility of this meter No. 326 having been tampered with, while it was in custody of the previous owner Narayan Lal could not be ruled out and it could not be held with certainty that it was tampered with after 17-T-19S7, when the respondent entered into an agreement with PESCO for the supply of energy. Learned counsel submitted that the consumption of electrical energy during the time of the respondents working the mill was very much more than the consumption of energy recorded during the working of the mill by the previous owner Narayan Lal. He took the figures of units advanced for 10 months from August 1056 to May 1957 and the total units consumed during that period came to 14424, whereas the total units consumed from August 1957 to May 1958 (10 months) came to 18880. Learned counsel divided these two figures separately by 10 and calculated that the average consumption of energy per month by the previous owner was roughly 1442 units, whereas the average consumption per month in course of the respondent working the mill came to 1-888 units. All these calculations were made on the basis of the entries made in the index card (Ex. A). That card indicated the units advanced from month to month. Relying on these figures, learned counsel urged that the tampering of the meter and the theft of electrical energy, if any, was at a time when the said meter was in the custody of the previous owner and not at all since the respondent took charge of this meter. It will not, however, be a safe criterion to take into account the figures in this manner for determining as to whether the meter in question could have been tampered with by the previous owner of the mill. The reason is that a new meter No. 226 was supplied to the previous owner on 20-4-1957 and at that time it was fully tested and sealed in a proper manner. The reason is that a new meter No. 226 was supplied to the previous owner on 20-4-1957 and at that time it was fully tested and sealed in a proper manner. The meter then was dust proof, It is thus clear that it was tampered with subsequent to 20-4-1957. The agreement between the respondent and PESCO was on 17-7-1957. The index card (Ex. A) indicates that on 1st June, units advanced were 2424. The consumption of these units of energy was in May 1957 and thus an entry was made in the index card on 1-6-1957. Meter No. 226 was supplied on 20-4-1957 and it was then in a perfectly good condition. There was no tampering with the meter in June 1957 as the energy consumed came to be properly registered. There was no reading on 2-7-1957 and there is a note "locked. Key is not available". On 1-8-1957 it was noted that the units advanced came to 3507. It may be that these units were advanced during the months of June and July, but even then the average was about 1750 units per month. Subsequent to it, there was a considerable fall and on 2-9-1957 only 816 units were shown as advanced. On 9-10-1957, 1529 units were shown as advanced and on 1-11-1957, 175 units were shown as advanced. On 29-11-1957 there was another entry indicating 1938 units advanced. Thereafter, on 2-1-1958, 1141 units were shown as advanced and on 31-1-1958, 2700 units. On 1-3-1958 only 1147 units were shown as advanced. On 1-4-1958 and 3-5-1958 the figures were fairly high, that is, 3880 and 2047 units respectively. On 2-6-1958, 986 units were shown as advanced. This was about a fortnight before the inspection and checking of 18-6-1958. It thus appears that the meter in question was tampered with sometime In August 1957 and at that time the said meter was definitely in the custody of the respondent. This matter can be examined from another point of view. The index reading on 2-6-1958 was 24164. On 18-6-1958 it was 25176 and this was noted on the date of the inspection itself. On 19-6-1958 the index reading was 25333 which means that 157 units were advanced in one day. This matter can be examined from another point of view. The index reading on 2-6-1958 was 24164. On 18-6-1958 it was 25176 and this was noted on the date of the inspection itself. On 19-6-1958 the index reading was 25333 which means that 157 units were advanced in one day. On 20-6-1958 the index reading was 25503, meaning thereby that 170 units were advanced in one day, but on taking into consideration the index readings on 2-6-1958 and 18-6-1958 the position is that only 1012 units were advanced in course of about 16 days and the average comes to about 63 or 64 units per day. This was before the detection of the tampering, but after the detection the consumption per day was registered as 157 to 170 units per day. It would be safer to take the figures for a longer period. On 18-6-1958 the index reading was 25176, but on 10-7-1958 it was 27723, meaning thereby that there was advance of 2547 units in 22 days. The average comes to about 115 units per day. This being the position, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the meter was tampered with, when it was in the custody of the previous owner. 16. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has drawn certain inferences against the prosecution case and I would briefly refer to diem. He took the view that the Meter Reader who used to go every mondi for noting the index reading and the units advanced on the meter card never reported that this meter had been tampered with. The evidence indicates that this meter was placed in a dark corner and there were some constructions near the wall on which the meter box was fixed. In this state of affairs, the Meter Reader was not able to carefully mark the meter during his visits and he was not vigilant in that respect. Another comment was that the authorities of the PESCO were not careful enough to bring the matter to the knowledge of the police immediately after the inspection and the checking. P. W. 6 made the inspection on 18-6-1958 and he reported the result thereof to the Chief Engineer verbally on that very date. On the following date he submitted his written report to the Chief Engineer and sent another report to the Officer in charge, Dinapore Police Station. P. W. 6 made the inspection on 18-6-1958 and he reported the result thereof to the Chief Engineer verbally on that very date. On the following date he submitted his written report to the Chief Engineer and sent another report to the Officer in charge, Dinapore Police Station. A copy of the latter report has been marked exhibit 21. The Additional Sessions Judge observed that the Assistant Engineer did not indicate in the report submitted to the police that the energy had been abstracted after the meter was tampered with. It was not necessary to furnish the details at that stage and the Assistant Engineer must have expected that after this report the officer in charge would himself inspect the installation in question for taking proper steps. It appears that the officer in charge did not take any step on the report submitted to him, and, therefore, the Chief Engineer had to file a petition of complaint on 12-7-1958. In a ease of this kind, the authorities of the PESCO had to satisfy themselves about the commission of the offence before going to court and it cannot be held that there was any laches on their part, particularly when the matter had been already brought to the notice of the officer in charge on the date following the inspection. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further noted that P. W. 6 had inspected on 11-6-1958 the installation in the premises of Ram Chandra Prasad Shanna of Dinapore and detected the tampering of the meter and the insertion of a wire through the stud hole on the meter cover as a result of which the rotation of the meter was stopped. This matter was before the police and the police had seized that meter. Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma happened to he the neighbour of the respondent and accordingly learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the respondent, if guilty, would have taken the precaution of removing the evidence of tampering immediately after the detection of the crime in the premises of Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma and would not allow the tampered meter to remain in the same condition. It was not at all proper to make surmises of this nature and these questions are not at all relevant, in view of his finding that the meter was found in the condition alleged by the prosecution on 18-6-1958. It was not at all proper to make surmises of this nature and these questions are not at all relevant, in view of his finding that the meter was found in the condition alleged by the prosecution on 18-6-1958. He further commented that the meter itself was not produced and a photographic copy of it was not taken on the date of inspection or subsequent to it. The condition, however, of the meter as found by the authorities of the PESCO on 18-6-1958 has been fully described by them in their evidence and the photographic copy would not have improved the matter any further. Learned Additional Sessions Judge having accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution about the condition of the meter on 18-6-1958 as alleged by it the entire discussion about the delay in filing the complaint, or the absence of a photographic copy, or the conduct of the respondent after the detection of the crime in the premises of his neighbour Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma appears to be irrelevant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has further discussed the evidence with regard to the offence under Sec.201, Indian Penal Code, but it is not at all necessary to deal with that, inasmuch as the respondent was acquitted in respect of that charge by the trial Court and against that acquittal the complainant did not file any appeal in this court at that stage. Learned counsel for the appellant was extremely fair in not pressing for a conviction of the respondent under Sec.201 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. On a review of the evidence, 1 am of the view that the respondent was responsible for the creation of the artificial means for dishonest abstraction of the electrical energy. The onus lay upon him to show that the exposure of the stud hole was not for the purpose of dishonest abstraction, but he has failed to discharge it. The respondent has not been able to rebut the presumption arising under Sec.39 of the Electricity Act. I have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of the offence under Sec.39 of the Electricity Act read with Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in acquitting him in respect of this charge 18. There was a charge against the respondent under Sec. 44 of the Electricity Act. There was a charge against the respondent under Sec. 44 of the Electricity Act. Sec. 44(c) reads thus: "Whoever- * * * * * (c) maliciously injures any meter referred to in Sec.26, Sub-section (1), or any meter, indicator or apparatus referred to in Sec.20, Sub-section (7), or wilfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator or apparatus or prevents any such meter, indicator or apparatus from duly registering; or * * * * * shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and, in the case of a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to fifty rupees; and if it is proved that any artificial means exist for making such connection as is referred to in Clause (a), or such communication as is referred to in Clause (b), or for causing such alteration or prevention as is referred to in Clause (c), or for facilitating such improper use as is referred to in Clause (d), and that the meter, indicator or apparatus is under the custody or control of the consumer, whether it is his property or not, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such connection, communication, alteration, prevention or improper use, aw the case may be, has been knowingly and wilfully caused by such consumer." The object of Sec. 44 is to punish various acts committed by licensees including the consumers. Clause (c) envisages inter alia that persons maliciously injuring any meter or preventing any meter from duly registering the consumption of energy should be punished. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by reason of the tampering of the meter in question the respondent prevented this meter from duly registering the energy consumed. In an offence under Clause (c) the prosecution has to prove the existence of any artificial means for preventing the meter from duly registering the consumption of energy. Once the existence of an artificial means for such prevention is established, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the prevention was knowingly and wilfully caused by the consumer. While dealing with the charge under Section 89 of the Electricity Act, I have already dealt with the evidence which indicated that this meter was tampered with and the artificial means for abstraction of energy did exist. While dealing with the charge under Section 89 of the Electricity Act, I have already dealt with the evidence which indicated that this meter was tampered with and the artificial means for abstraction of energy did exist. It cannot be said that the respondent (consumer) was ignoramus of the existence of the artificial means, in as-much as this abstraction was for his benefit and the meter was prevented from duly registering the consumption of energy. The meter was under the custody and control of the respondent and, in these circumstances he must be held responsible for the prevention of the meter from duly registering the consumption of energy. I have already indicated that subsequent to the detection of the tampering P. W. 6 took various readings and noted them on the index card. It is clear that the consumption recorded had considerably increased. It is further clear that actual consumption was not being recorded prior to the detection of the tampering. There was a fraudulent and dishonest intention in breaking the seals on the meter cover and exposing the stud hole for the purpose of interfering with the due registration of electrical energy. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dealing with the charges under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act referred to a decision of this Court in Bhagalpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. V/s. Profulla kumar, AIR 1938 Pat 243, but the prosecution case there failed against P.N. Ghosh, inasmuch as it was not established that he was the consumer. It was further held that P.N. Ghosh not being the consumer the presumption given in the concluding portion of Sec. 44 was not available to the prosecution and without that presumption there was no case whatsoever against P.N. Ghosh either under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code or under Sections 39 and 44(c) of the Electricity Act. Learned Additional Sessions Judge referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in A. C. Mojumdar V/s. Emperor, AIR 1941 Cal 87 and learned counsel for the respondent as well relied on this decision. The petitioner in that case was convicted under Sec. 44(d) of the Electricity Act. The case against him was that he improperly used three points in his workshop for lighting purposes when he was under a contract with the electric supply company to use the energy supplied through those points for industrial purposes only. The petitioner in that case was convicted under Sec. 44(d) of the Electricity Act. The case against him was that he improperly used three points in his workshop for lighting purposes when he was under a contract with the electric supply company to use the energy supplied through those points for industrial purposes only. The Magistrate had taken the view that the petitioner could be presumed to have used the electrical energy improperly, inasmuch as he had made certain connections for the use of electrical energy without the consent of the licensee. This view was held to be erroneous and it was observed that the onus lay (in that case) on the prosecution to show that three of the points in the petitioners workshop had actually been used for lighting purposes and not for industrial purposes. As the prosecution failed to discharge the initial onus the conviction was set aside. In the present case, that decision is of no assistance to the respondent, inasmuch as he has to answer a charge here in respect of the offence under Section 44(c) of the Electricity Act. The prosecution having discharged the initial onus in the present case, the burden lay upon the respondent to prove that the prevention of the meter from duly registering the consumption of energy was without his knowledge and that he had nothing to do with it. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the acquittal of the respondent in respect of this charge as well was erroneous and he must be held guilty under Sec. 44 as well of the Electricity Act. 19. There is another charge against the respondent under Rule 138 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. But before referring to this rule, Rule 50 is relevant on this point. Rule 56(1) lays down that a supplier may affix one or more seals to any cut-out and to any meter, maximum demand indicator, or other apparatus placed upon a consumers premises in accordance with Sec.26, and no person other than the supplier shall break any such seal. Clause (2) provides that the consumer shall use all reasonable means in his power to ensure that no such seal is broken otherwise than by the supplier. Clause (2) provides that the consumer shall use all reasonable means in his power to ensure that no such seal is broken otherwise than by the supplier. Rule 138, on the other hand, provides a penalty for breaking the seal and it reads thus: "Where, in contravention of Rule 56 any seal referred to in that rule is broken: (a) the person breaking the seal shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees; and (b) the consumer when he has not himself broken the seal shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees unless he proves that he used all reasonable means in his power to ensure that the seal should not be broken." P. W. 6 found M.D.I. seals on the meter cove? tampered with and he mentioned this fact in the report (Ex. 19) as well. Besides this, the seal on the terminal cover was found missing. P. W, 1 as well deposed that he found the seals on the meter cover broken. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in this respect is reliable and there is no doubt that there has been a contravention of Rule 56. There was a liability on the respondent (consumer) to use ail reasonable means in his power to ensure that such seals were not broken. The respondent has failed to show that he look necessary steps and used all reasonable means to protect the seals from being broken. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Look the view that the mere fact that the left hand top scaling nut was not properly screwed up and that the stud hole was left exposed would not indicate that the seals had been tampered with or broken. In view of the positive evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 6 in this respect, I cannot accept the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions judge. He later on observed that one of the seals might have been broken by the men of the licensee to set right some disorder. I do not find any justification even for this assumption. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the respondent is guilty of the offence under Rule 138(b) read with Rule 56 of the Indian Electricity Rules and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in acquitting him in respect of tins charge. I do not find any justification even for this assumption. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the respondent is guilty of the offence under Rule 138(b) read with Rule 56 of the Indian Electricity Rules and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not right in acquitting him in respect of tins charge. The order of acquittal was unwarranted and it must be set aside. 20. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of acquittal is set aside. The respondent Jagarnath Singh is convicted under Sec.39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. He is convicted under Section 44(c) of the Indian Electricity Act as well and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He is further convicted under Clause (b). of Rule 138 of the Indian Electricity Rules and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 and, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The, entire amount of fine, if realised, will be paid to the Patna Electric Company Ltd. by way of compensation