JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 25-11-1985 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal appeal No. 56/85, whereby the petitioners conviction under Section 39 of the electricity Act, 1910 (for short the Act) read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code has been maintained and only the sentence of fine has been reduced to Rs. 1000/- from rs. 1500/ -. ( 2. ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the petition are these. According to the prosecution on 15-3-1985 it was found that the well situate in the land belonging to daulal (P. W. 3) and in the cultivating possession of the petitioner was fitted with electric motor with necessary connections for unauthorisedly abstracting electric energy. ( 3. ) THE Assistant Engineer Krishnarao Vyas (P. W. 1) reported the occurrence to the Police for registration of a crime and for necessary action. ( 4. ) THE matter was investigated by the Police and at the conclusion of the investigation the petitioner was prosecuted with the result already stated. ( 5. ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be admitted. ( 6. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime in question. ( 7. ) AT the outset it is apposite to extract section 39 of the Act. It reads thus :- "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 means for such abstraction shall be prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction," Electricity is not movable property and dishonest abstraction of electricity is an offence under the Act and not under the Indian Penal Code. ( 8. ) PROSECUTION for the said offence can be launched by the Police at the instance of the person aggrieved within the meaning of section 50 of the Act. In this connection the decision in Sardar Singhs case (1986 (II) MPWN 183) may usefully be perused. ( 9. ) THE evidence of Assistant Engineer Krishnarao Vyas (P. W. 1) and Daulal (P. W. 3) has been found by the Courts below to be credible and I have no reason to take a contrary view. In this connection the decision in Sardar Singhs case (1986 (II) MPWN 183) may usefully be perused. ( 9. ) THE evidence of Assistant Engineer Krishnarao Vyas (P. W. 1) and Daulal (P. W. 3) has been found by the Courts below to be credible and I have no reason to take a contrary view. The evidence establishes the connection of the petitioner with the crime in question. In the decision in Jhalkansinghs case ( 1981 MPLJ 409 =1981 J. L. J. 560) the person who stood to profit by dishonest abstract of electricity was held guilty. Here the petitioner so stood to profit. ( 10. ) IT may also be stated that the re visional jurisdiction is limited in scope and is also discretionary. In exercise of that jurisdiction the Court steps in to interfere only to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. ( 11. ) ON a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case I find that no case for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction has been made out. ( 12. ) IN the result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.