J. P. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) SO far as section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 is concerned it does not require any sanction from any authority but it only says that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against the said Act or any rule licence or order thereunder except at the instance of Government or an Electrical Inspector or of a person aggrieved by the same. In the pesent case the supplier is the Gujarat Electricity Board and hence it can be said that the Gujarat Electricity Board is aggrieved by the act of the accused. Hence the prosecution has to be instituted at the instance of the Gujarat Electricity Board. Now the Gujarat Electricity Board acts through its officers. The Deputy Engineer Gujarat Electricity Board ai Dabhoi filed a complaint at the Dabhoi Police Station in connection with this offence. though of course against Chunibhai Nathubhai in whose name the electrical connection was taken. It is stated fin the complaint that the said complaint is filed on behalf of the Gujarat Electricity Board as required by section 50 of the Electricity Act. That complaint is at Ex. 35 on the record of the trial Court. Ex. 25 shows that the Executive Engineer of the Gujarat Electricity Board accorded post-facto approval to the act of the Deputy Engineer. Ex. 25 refers to Conduct of Legal Affairs booklet in this connection The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed in my hands the booklet published by the Gujarat Electricity Board which is entitled The Conduct of Legal Affairs (Procedure) Regulation 1961. The said Regulation has been made in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (k) of section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 Chapter II of the said Regulation deals with delegation of powers. Regulation 5 which is in Chapter 11 reads as follows :-"5 Delegation of powers in Criminal Cases: (1) In respect of criminal cases for offences under the Indian Electricity Act 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 and other offences of minor nature the Divisional Executive Engineer Dy. Superintending Engineer and Superintending Engineer Power Station Superintendent or any officer-in-charge of the Power House of Sub-Division with the. approval of the Divisional Officer may initiate criminal proceedings. Superintending Engineer and Superintending Engineer Power Station Superintendent or any officer-in-charge of the Power House of Sub-Division with the. approval of the Divisional Officer may initiate criminal proceedings. In urgent matters however action may be taken as may be warranted ed by the circumstance of the case and the approval of the Divisional Officer may be obtained later on. The Officer taking action shall forward a report in all cases to the Executive Engineer and Dy. Superintending Engineer or the Superintending Engineer of the Circle concerned. (2) In case of serious offences such as embazzlement fraud and other similar criminal act the Officer concerned shall send immediately after commission of such offence comes to his notice a report to the Dy. Superintending Engineer or the Superintending Engineer of the Circle concerned for instructions. On receipt of such report the Dy. Superintending Engineer or the Superintending Engineer after obtaining legal advice shall in consultation with the Secretary Chief Engineer or Chairman issue without any avoidable delay such instructions as are considered suitable in regard to the action to be taken in the matter. (3) After it is decided to initiate criminal proceedings as provided in clauses (I) and (2) above the local Executive Officer concerned shall immediately file a complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction in non-cognizable criminal cases and in cognizable cases they shall inform the local Police Officer about the commission of the crime. The action taken in this respect shall be reported to the Head Office with copies of relevant papers of the case. ( 3 ) IT appears that the Deputy Engineer who was authorised to file the complaint before police this being a cognizable offence filed complaint before the police and obtained post-facto sanction from the Executive Engineer. Looking to the provisions of Regulation 5 which are reproduced above it is clear that there was compliance with the provisions of section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act in the present case in that the Deputy Engineer to whom the powers were delegated filed the complaint before the police and obtained post-facto approval from the Executive Engineer. It is not that the Deputy Engineer was not empowered to file the complaint. It is not that the Deputy Engineer was not empowered to file the complaint. The provisions show that he had ordinarily to take approval of the Divisional Officer first and then take action but in urgent matters a Deputy Engineer can take action as may be warranted by the circumstances of the case and the approval of the Divisional Officer could be obtained later on. The Deputy Engineer in the present case thus being a person authorised to file the complaint and he having filed the complaint before the police it is clear that there was compliance with section 50 in the present case. In view of this the learned advocate Mr. D. F. Amin for the respondent-accused was unable to support the conclusion reached by the learned Judicial Magistrate that there was no compliance with section 50 of the Electricity Act in the present case. It is crystal clear from the above discussion that the complaint was filed by a competent officer authorised by the Gujarat Electricity Board the aggrieved institution which could set the law in motion as per section 50 of the Electricity Act. ( 4 ) IN this connection. I would like to mention here that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. relied upon an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 628 of 1977 rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court for reaching the conclusion that the complaint was not in accordance with section 50 of the Electricity Act. In this connection. the learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Karnataka v. Adimurthy alias B. Moorthy A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 822 wherein it is held that authorisation by the Board to file a complaint need not be by a notification published in Official Gazette. The Supreme Court in that case has observed that the words at the instance of mean at the behest of or at the solicitation of and it does not imply the same degree of obligation to obey as does `command. It appears that in that case also the Karanataka Electricity Board issued a general notification authorising certain officers to take action under section 50 of the Act and that was upheld by the Supreme Court. It appears that in that case also the Karanataka Electricity Board issued a general notification authorising certain officers to take action under section 50 of the Act and that was upheld by the Supreme Court. Here also we have got the Regulation of 1961 made by the Gujarat Electricity Board in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (k) of section 79 of the :electricity (Supply ). . Act. 1948 That way also it can be said that there is compliance of section 50 In the present case anyway it is not necessary to enter into further discussion on this question because the learned Advocate Mr. D. F. Amin fairly conceded that there was compliance of sec. 50 in the present case. The above discussion has been necessary only because the learned Judicial Magistrate relied upon an unreported decision of this Court (now reported in 20 G. L. R. 391 whereas the decision of the Supreme Court is rendered in May 1983 some years after the decision was rendered by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class. Appeal allowed. .