ORDER Oza, J -1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against his convictions under section 332 IPC and section 379 IPC read with section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. He has been sentenced to three months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 332 and to a fine of Rs. 250/- under section 379 read with section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act by the learned Sessions Judge, Shajapur in appeal against the convictions of this petitioner by Magistrate 1st Class, Agar. 2. The prosecution case at the trial was that on 23rd May 1975 supervisor of the Electricity Board Shri S. P. Sharma with his assistant Ramcharan went to village Piplon Khurd on the well of the petitioner Suleman. There were other persons also accompanying them. There they found that the petitioner has connected a pump on the well without authority and the motor was being run by electrical energy which was being stolen. The supervisor directed his assistant Ramcharan to disconnect. Thereupon when Ramcharan got down from the pole the petitioner gave a blow with Dhariya to Ramcharan resulting in an incised wound on his palm. On these facts the petitioner was prosecuted and ultimately he was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this revision contended that the offence under section 379 IPC is not made out because the electricity is not a movable property; According to the learned counsel the theft of electrical energy has been brought within the ambit of section 379 IPC by enactment of section 39 or the Indian Electricity Act and, therefore, the prosecution for this offence could only be launched by or at the instance of a person as comtemplated in section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, He, therefore, contended that so far as the conviction of the petitioner under section 379 IPC is concerned it could not be maintained as the prosecution has not been launched by a person as required under section 50 of the Electricity Act. 4. Regarding the conviction of the petitioner under section 332 IPC it was contended that although the doctor described the injury as incised wound but he has not been able to measure the depth. According to the learned counsel the witnesses do say that when Ramcharan got down from the pole his palm was bleeding. 4. Regarding the conviction of the petitioner under section 332 IPC it was contended that although the doctor described the injury as incised wound but he has not been able to measure the depth. According to the learned counsel the witnesses do say that when Ramcharan got down from the pole his palm was bleeding. Under these circumstances according to the learned counsel the offence under section 332 IPC is not made out beyond doubt. 5. Learned counsel for the State contended that the offence under section 379 IPC being a cognizable offence a charge-sheet has been filed by the police and therefore as it is an offence under section 379 the prosecution need not be by a person or at the instance of a person as required under section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act. 6. As regards the offence under section 332 IPC it was contended that the facts of the case justify the conviction. 7. Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act reads: "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 needs for such abstraction shall be prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction." This section provides that if anyone consumes electrical energy dishonestly, he will be deemed to have committed an offence of theft within the meaning of Indian Penal Code. Theft has been defined in section 378 IPC and it provides for removal of movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent and with dishonest intention. Apparently, therefore, the definition of theft as contemplated under section 378 IPC will not cover a case of theft or use of electrical energy without the authority but section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act has brought this use of electricity in this manner within the ambit of the definition of theft. This question was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1965 SC 666 ) and it was held: "With regard to the first reason that section 39 of the Act extended the operation of section 378 of the Code, it seems to us beyond question that section 39 did not extend section 378 in the sense of amending it or in any way altering the language used in it. Section 378, read by itself even after the enactment of section 39, would not include a theft of electricity for electricity is not considered to be movable property. The only way in which it can be said that section 39 extended section 378 is by stating that it made something which was not a theft under section 378, a theft within the meaning of that section. It follows that if section 39 did so, it created the offence itself and section 378 did not do so. In this view of the matter we do not think it possible to say that the thing so made a theft and an offence, became one by virtue of section 378." After consideration of various cases on the subject their Lordships came to the conclusion- "To put it shortly, dishonest abstraction of electricity mentioned in section 39 cannot be an offence under the Code for under it alone it is not an offence; the dishonest abstraction is by section 39 made a theft within the meaning of the Code, that is an offence of the variety described in the Code as theft. As the offence is created by raising a fiction, the section which raises the fiction, namely section 39 of the Act, must be said to create the offence. Since the abstraction is by section 39 to be deemed to be an offence under the Code, the fiction must be followed to the end and the offence so created would entail the punishment mentioned in the Code for that offence. The punishment is not under the Code itself for under it abstraction of energy is Lot an offence at all." It is, therefore, clear that by reading section 39 the theft of electrical energy has been brought within the ambit of theft as contemplated under section 378 IPC. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as this offence has been brought within the ambit of section 378 because of section 39 a prosecution could not be launched as required under section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as this offence has been brought within the ambit of section 378 because of section 39 a prosecution could not be launched as required under section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act. Section 50 of the Electricity Act provides: "No prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against this Act 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." This provision talks of a prosecution for an offence under this Act which could only be launched at the instance of the Government or an Electrical Inspector. In 1965 SC 666 (supra) their Lordships considered the, the impact of section 50 on a prosecution under theft and it was held: "We may now refer to certain general considerations also leading to the view which we have taken. First, we find that the heading which governs Ss.39 to 50 of the Act is' Criminal Offences and Procedure". Obviously, therefore, the legislature thought that section 39 created an offence. We have also said that Ss. 48 and 49 indicate that in the legislature's contemplation section 39 provided for a punishment. That section must, therefore, also have been intended to create an offence to which the punishment was to attach. The word 'offence' is not defined in the Act. Since for the reasons, earlier mentioned, in the legislature's view section 39 created an offence, it has to be held that that was one of the offences to which section 50 was intended to apply Lastly it seems to us that the object of section 50 is to prevent prosecution for offences against the Act being instituted by anyone who chooses to do so because the offences can be proved by men possessing special qualifications. That is why it is left only to the authorities concerned with the offence and the persons aggrieved by it to intiate the prosecution. There is no dispute that section 50 would apply to the offences mentioned in Ss 40 to 47. Now it seems to us that if we are right in our view about the object of section 50, in principle it would be impossible to make any distinction between section 39 and any of the sections from section 40 to section 47. Now it seems to us that if we are right in our view about the object of section 50, in principle it would be impossible to make any distinction between section 39 and any of the sections from section 40 to section 47. Thus section 40 makes it an offence to maliciously cause energy to be wasted If in respect of waste of energy section 50 is to have application, there is no reason why it should not have been intended to apply to dishonest abstraction of energy made a theft by section 39 For all these reasons we think that the present is a case of an offence against the Act and the prosecution in respect of that offence would be incompetent unless it was instituted at the instance of a person named in section 50." It is, therefore, clearly laid down that when a prosecution is launched for theft of electrical energy then the prosecution will be incompetent if it has not been launched in accordance with section 50, In the present case the prosecution was launched by the police on a report submitted by the supervisor Shri Sharma (PW 1). Admittedly he is not Electrical Inspecter. It is also clear that there is no order or direction of the State Government for launching of this prosecution. 9. Section 50 contemplates a prosecution either at the instance of the Government or at the instance of the Electrical Inspector. Even if a prosecution is launched by police as apparently it could I be launched by police, as this is a cognizable offence, it could only be initiated by report of the Electrical Inspector or under orders of the Government- 'At the instance of' occurring in section 50 has been considered in Provincial Government, Central Provinces and Berar v. J. Yoganandam (AIR 1944 Nagpur 380) "The expression at the instance of occurring in section 50 does not mean on the complaint of or with the sanction of, but only means at the asking or the suggestion of. The object of the legislature in using that phrase was only to prevent indiscriminate prosecutions by persons without any expert knowledge of the working of electricity. All that it contemplates is that the Electrical Inspector should be satisfied about the propriety of the prosecution before it is launched". The object of the legislature in using that phrase was only to prevent indiscriminate prosecutions by persons without any expert knowledge of the working of electricity. All that it contemplates is that the Electrical Inspector should be satisfied about the propriety of the prosecution before it is launched". In the present case admittedly neither there is a suggestion or a complaint made by the Electrical Inspector nor by the State Government. It, therefore, cannot be said that the prosecution has been launched as required under section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act. In Rama Shanker Sinha v. The State (AIR 1968 Patna 131) a similar question was considered when a prosecution under section 379 was institute for theft of electrical energy. In that case the prosecution was insitiated in the letter from the Secretary of the Electric Company and the matter was investigated by the investigation officers and his Lordship observed : "In the instant case I have alredy mentioned that the prosecution was started on the basis of a letter (Exhibit 8) of Shri Thatham (P.W. 13), the Secretary. There is no evidence to show what functions the Secretary has to perform, what his during and powers are The learned Sessions Judge has said that the Secretary sent the letter for and on behalf of the company because, at the foot of the letter, be bas put his signature "for and on behalf of the company". I am unable to agree. The petitioner was contending that the prosecution had not been started at the instance of any of the persons named in section 50. It was, therefore, necessary for complainant or for the management to prove either that the Secretary had himself the power to launch the prosecution or that he had such authority from the appropriate officer. The investigating officer (PW 15) has stated that Shri Thatham did not produce before him any authority under the Electricity Act to file a complaint. It is clear that the prosecution has not been started at the instance of the Government or an Electrical Inspector. There is, on doubt that the com pay is, on the facts alleged in this case, an noggrieved person. The company could, however, act only through some person. No evidence has been given to show that the Secretary was such person. There is, on doubt that the com pay is, on the facts alleged in this case, an noggrieved person. The company could, however, act only through some person. No evidence has been given to show that the Secretary was such person. Indeed, when he came to give evidence, he did not stick to the statement made by him in the letter (Exhibit 8) that he had sent the report for and on behalf of the company. What he said was that he had filed the first information report as the person aggrieved. As I have already said, it is impossible to hold that he is the person aggrieved in the absence of evidence relating to his functions". It, therefore, cannot be disputed that a prosecution for an offence of theft of electrical energy could only be launched all required under section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act at the instance of the Electrical Inspector or the Government. Admittedly as the present prosecution was not launched at the instance of the Electrical Inspector or the Government, conviction of the petitioner under section 379 IPC read with section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act could not be maintained. 10. The petitioner has also been convicted for an offence under section 332 IPC. He has been sentenced to three months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-.According to learned counsel for the petitioner the conviction is not justified as according to him the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses clearly go to show that the injured had injury before he came down from the pole. All these questions of appreciation of evidence have already been considered by the two Courts below and in the revision petition I do Dot think it necessary to go into those questions. Apparently those witnesses who have supported the prosecution and have been declared hostile have been considered by the Court below and the petitioner has been convicted for that offence but in the circumstances of the cage in my opinion so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned the sentence of the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) as awarded by the learned Court below will meet the ends of justice. 11. Consequently this revision is partly allowed. 500/- (five hundred) as awarded by the learned Court below will meet the ends of justice. 11. Consequently this revision is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner under section 379 IPC read with section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act are set aside. His conviction under section 332 IPC is maintained but the sentence is modified to one of imprisonment already undergone and to a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred).