Short Note : 1. Briefly stated the prosecution case at the trial was that the officials of the M.P. Electricity Board, on inspection on 10.11.1975 at village, Dabana, found that the applicant was misusing the electric meter-Board in such a manner that without operating the meter, the electricity was being consumed. A Panchnama Ex.P/1 was prepared on the spot by Rajanikant PW-2, the Supervisor, in the presence of Ramkrishna Nima PW-4, the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Board, posted at Barwani. He therefore, sent FIR Ex.P/5 on the basis of which police filed the challan against the applicant. Relying on the prosecution evidence of Rajanikant PW-2 Ramkrishna Nima PW-4 etc. the trial Court found that the case against the applicant fully established which finding has also been maintained by the lower appellate Court. 2. It is no doubt true that the charge framed against the applicant is under Section 379, IPC but in my opinion, this has not caused any prejudice to the applicant. In the decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 666 (supra) it has been held that dishonest abstraction of electricity mentioned in S. 39 of the Act cannot be an offence under the Penal 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 raise, the fiction, namely S. 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 not an offence at all. 3. As regards the contention that there has been no proper institution of the prosecution as contemplated by section 50 of the Act, it has no substance. 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 suggestion of. 3. As regards the contention that there has been no proper institution of the prosecution as contemplated by section 50 of the Act, it has no substance. 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 suggestion of. The object or the legislature in using that phrase was only to prevent indiscriminate prosecutions by persons without any expert knowledge about the working of the electricity. All that it contemplates is that there should be satisfaction about the propriety of the prosecution before it is launched, in the present case, the prosecution originated with the complaint of the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Board, who can be said to be the person aggrieved, when he detected the theft in the discharge of his duties. Therefore this technical objection is of no avail to the applicant so also the authorities relied on by his learned counsel. 4. Lastly it was urged that considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the total fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. 500/- imposed by the trial Court) plus Rs. 1,000/- imposed by the lower appellate Court in lieu of jail sentence) is too heavy, more so when the applicant has already deposited the entire electric charges. This submission deserves some consideration as the same was also not seriously opposed on behalf of the State. 5. In the result, this revision is party allowed, the conviction of the applicant is maintained but the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,500/- is reduced to a fine of Rs. 500/- only. AIR 1965 SC 666 explained. AIR 1967 SC 349 distinguished. Revision partly allowed.