Judgment M. P. Singh, J. 1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.1973 for quashing cognizance of the offences under section 39/44 the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with section 379, Penal code taken on 5 April, 1977 by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna against the petitioner Kedar Nath Goenka of Chowk Bazar, Monghyr on the basis of a complaint dated 30 March, 1977 made by Chitranjan Prasad, assistant Electrical Engineer, Monghyr. The date and time of occurrence as alleged in the complaint is 30 March, 1977,1-30 p. m. The place of occurrence is said to be the khalihan of the accused in village 5 No Gumti, Police station Moffusll in the district of Monghyr. The allegations made in the complaint are as follows : "the above accused person had taken direct electric connection from boards mains with his own arrangements to thrash wheat crop with the help of electrically operated thrasher. At the place where he was running his thrasher had no other electric connection in his house. Thus he committed theft of eletrical energy and also interfered with in the Boards supply system. Action against him may kindly be taken accordingly. " This complaint was made to the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 5th April, 1977 and on that a very date cognizance was taken by him and an order for issue of a non-bailable warrant of arrest was passed for his appearance in court on 26th May, 1977. 2. Mr. Rajgarhiya for the petitioner contended that the allegations aforesaid do not constitute any offence and hence the order of the Special judicial Magistrate dated 5 April, 1977 taking cognizance of the offence above mentioned should be quashed. In my opinion, the contention is sound. As held in sharda Prasad V/s. State of Bihar, MR 1977 SC 1754, it is now settled law that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence it is competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. The allegations set out in the complaint in the instant case, in my opinion do not constitute the offence of theft. The allegations set out in the complaint in the instant case, in my opinion do not constitute the offence of theft. Sec.39 of the Indian electricity Act, 1910 (briefly "the Act") runs as under : "whoever dishonestly, abstract, and consumes or uses any energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of the indian Penal Code 1860 (XLV 1860) and the existence of artificial means for such abstraction shall be prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction. " On a perusal of the above it is clear that "dishonesty" is the essential ingredient of the offence of theft. See also the cases of Bhagwan Sahi and another V/s. Divisional Forest Officer, AIR 194 Patna 264 and In re Dr. Puchalapalli Ram handrareddi, AIR 1960 Andhra Pradesh 569. The complaint in the present case does not say any where that the accused dishonestly abstracted or consumed or used any energy. There is no averment of dishonest intention. In the first part of the aforesaid allegation the only thing is said that the accused had taken direct electric connection from Boards mains with his own arrangement to thrash wheat crop with the help of electrically operated thrasher. It is not said that the accused dishonestly abstracted any energy. The second part of that allegation says that there was no other electric connection at that place in the name of the petitioner. At the end of the allegation the complainant says that the accused interfered with the board s supply system. There three facts, I think do not constitute the offence of theft as defined in section 39 of the Act. 3. Section 44 of the Act runs as follows : "whoever- (a) connects any meter referred to in section 26, sub-section (I), or any meter, indicator or apparatus referred to in section 26, subsection (7), with any electric supply line through which energy is supplied by a licensee, or disconnects the same from any such electric supply line. . . . . . or (b) lays, or cause to be laid, or connects up any works for the purpose of communicating with any other works belonging to licensee. . . . . . . . . . . or (b) lays, or cause to be laid, or connects up any works for the purpose of communicating with any other works belonging to licensee. . . . . . or (c) maliciously injures any meter referred to in section 26, sub-section (1) or any meter, indicator or apparatus referred to in section 26, sub section (7), or wilfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator or apparatus, prevents any such meter, indicator or apparatus from duly registering ; or (d) improperly uses the energy of a licensee ; shall be punishable with fine which may extend to (five hundred) rupees. . . . . . ". It is further clear that the aforesaid allegations made in the complaint do not make out offence under section 44 either. There is no allegation that the accused maliciously injured any meter referred to in section 25 of the Act. In view of the principles laid down in the case of Sharda Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754 (supra) there cannot be any doubt that every ingredient of the offence must be alleged in the complaint. That not being so in the present case must be held that cognizance taken was illegal and it should be quashed. 4. There is still another reason for quashing the proceeding. A simple perusal of the aforesaid allegations made in the complaint goes to show that the allegation are quite vague. It is not said who visited the spot and who saw the accused taking direct electric connection from Boards mains, It is rather said that the accused person had taken direct electric connection from boards mains, This indicates as if something had been done in the past. It is also not said as to whether there was any other electric connection in the name of the accused. It may mean that there was or were other electric connection pr electric connections in the names of other members of the family of the accused. No where it is said as to who went to the spot, at what time and under what circumstance. It is not clear whether a surprise raid was made or any person went there under the order of any superior officer, Everything is kept vague. No where it is said as to who went to the spot, at what time and under what circumstance. It is not clear whether a surprise raid was made or any person went there under the order of any superior officer, Everything is kept vague. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint petition and the fact that an order for issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest was passed on the very day when the complaint was received by the Special Judicial magistrate indicates that the complaint was not made in good faith. The petitioner has alleged that he is a respectable person and mostly resides in calcutta and is Chairman and Director of various companies. It is also said that he is 70 years old and is not in a position to move about. The complaint petition does not say whether the accused himself was present at the spot and himself was doing any act or was getting any act done through his men. It appears to me that the complaint suffers from vagueness and the allegations do not constitute any offence In a clear way. In K. C. Jain V/s. Maheshwar Singh, 1970 PLJR 231 it was observed : "a criminal proceeding started on a complaint which does not contain any definite accusition amounts to abuse of the process of the criminal court and in such a situation the High Court can certainly intervene. " A similar view was taken in a Division Bench case of this Court in r. N. Dutta V/s. The State of Bihar, 1971 BLJR 1005 in which it was said that a vague and general allegation cannot be accepted and that the order taking cognizance must be quashed. In my opinion, the allegations made in the complaint of the present case are vague and general and hence the order taking cognizance should be quashed. 5. Another point taken by the petitioner is that the complaint is not a proper complaint, there being legal bar against the institution on account of the fact that the complaint Chitranjan Prasad was not authorised by law to file it. It was urged that under section 50 of the Act no prosecution could be instituted except at the instance of the government or an Electrical Inspector or a person aggrieved. It was urged that under section 50 of the Act no prosecution could be instituted except at the instance of the government or an Electrical Inspector or a person aggrieved. Sec.50 of the Act is as follows : "no prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against this Acl or any rule, licence or order thereunder, except at the instance of the Government or an Electrical Inspector or of a person aggrieved by the same. " Clearly the prosecution was not started at the instance of the Government or an Electrical Inspector. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing in the complaint petition to show that Chitranjan Prasad was a person aggrieved by the offence. It was said that it was the Electricity Board which was the aggrieved person and the Assistant Electrical Engineer Chitranjan Prasad could not be a person aggrieved nor he was authorised by the Board to file the case and there being no such authorisation, no prosecution could be instituted against the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the Electricity Board contended that all Assistant Electrical Engineers had been authorised by the Board to take necessary steps in the matter as person aggrieved within the meaning of section 50 of the Act. My attention was drawn to the Boards notification No. L/sc. /1006/66-206 E. B. , dated 21 February 1967, No. I/m-402/67-232 R. B. dated 14th December, 1967 and No.1/n-402/67-1316 E. B. dated 2 April, 1973 published in the Bihar gazette (Extraordinary) dated th April, 1977. They undoubtedly support the contention of the opposite party. They show that the Assistant Electrical Engineers or Electrical Executive Engineers posted or to be posted in the Vigillence Cell of the Board were authorised to launch prosecution on behalf of the Board for any offence under the Act etc. The argument of the petitioner, however, is that the necessary fact regarding authorisation should have been mentioned in the complaint and in absence of the same the complaint cannot be held to be a proper one and should be dismissed as not maintainable. The argument of the petitioner, however, is that the necessary fact regarding authorisation should have been mentioned in the complaint and in absence of the same the complaint cannot be held to be a proper one and should be dismissed as not maintainable. Reliance was placed on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in criminal Appeal No.64 of 1977 (State of Bihar V/s. Govind Prasad Pansari)decided on 20th April, 1977 in which the following observation occurs : "but there is no statement in the charge-sheet or in the F. I. R. that the respondent was incharge of shop and that he was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. In the absence of any such averment no prosecution under section 10 can be launched against the respondent. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court was correct. " In the view which I have taken on the first contention I do not think it necessary to express any opinion on this point. 6 For the reasons already expressed I allow this application set aside the order of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Patna, dated 5 April, 1977 takine cognizance and quash the proceedings in Case No.171 (C)-77/tr No 704 of 1977 pending in the Court of Special Magistrate, Patna. Application allowed.