JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra, J. - This is an application in revision against the conviction of Dr. Vishwavir applicant under, Section 426 Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The applicant cut off the electric connection of the sub-meter of Sheo Bhagwan, who was the applicants tenant. Sheo Bhagwan thereupon made a report in the police station and also filed the complaint which has given rise to this application for revision. Both the Courts below have found the applicant guilty. 3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant are two-fold : firstly, that the applicants action is not covered by the definition of mischief because electricity is not movable property and secondly, that it was essentially a civil dispute. 4. As far as the first contention, Section 425, I.P.C., which defines mischief runs as follows :- "Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public; or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief. It is evident from the words of this section that the two necessary ingredients are that there must be either the intention to cause or knowledge that the person is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, and secondly, that the person causes the destruction of any property or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously. The intention to cause wrongful loss to the opposite party was clearly there. A change was also caused in the property. A change may also be in any . property just as there may be a destruction of any property. The intention to cause wrongful loss to the opposite party was clearly there. A change was also caused in the property. A change may also be in any . property just as there may be a destruction of any property. It has been held in Brojo Lakshmi Paul and another v. Sailendra, Nath Banerjee and another, AIR 1959 Calcutta 260 that if a landlord cuts off the electric connection of his tenant as he refused to pay enhanced electric chargesl demanded by him the cutting off the electric connection which was done with the intention of causing wrongful loss to the opposite party and the same had resulted in causing such destruction to the property or such change in the property or diminution in its value or utility has come clearly within the definition of Section 426 I.P.C. With respect I agree with the view taken in this decision by the Calcutta High Court." 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that this decision was given earlier than the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1965 SC 666. Avtar Singhs case related to an offence under Sections 39 and 50 of the Electricity Act. A theft of electricity is certainly not covered by Section 378 I.P.C. and their Lordships held that electricity was not considered to be movable property. The present case was not one of theft of movable property, but the supply of the line of electricity through the sub-meter was cut off by the applicant. This, as held by the Calcutta High Court, was such destruction or change or diminution in the value or utility of the property as to come within the mischief of Section 426, I.P.C. and the decision of the Supreme Court does not help the applicant at all. 6. The next contention is also without force for an offence does not cease to be an offence merely because it is a civil dispute, for the act may be an offence and may also give rise to damages in a civil suit. In this case the act of the applicant clearly amounted to an offence I under Section 426, I.P.C. as mentioned above. 7. The application in revision is, therefore, without substance and is dismissed. In this case the act of the applicant clearly amounted to an offence I under Section 426, I.P.C. as mentioned above. 7. The application in revision is, therefore, without substance and is dismissed. The applicant has, as a matter of fact, been let off lightly by the sen-I fence of only a fine of Rs. 40/-.