SACHEENDRA DWIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of confiscation of the property involved in the offence under section 379, I. P. C. read with section 39 of the Electricity Act. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was prosecuted for the offence stated above and was convicted by the trial Court under the judgment dated 30/10/1984. He was sentenced to three months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500. 00. The trial Court also ordered confiscation of the property involved in the commission of the offence, i. e. motor pump, starter, pipe and other articles directing the property to be put to auction and auction money to deposited in Govt. treasury. ( 3 ) AGAINST the order of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner. The learned appellate Court acquitted the petitioner, giving benefit of doubt on the finding that it could not definitely be said that the petitioner was the author of the crime. As regards the property, the order passed by the trial Court was maintained. Hence this revision. ( 4 ) IN this revision, the orders of the Courts below with respect to confiscation of the property are being challenged on the ground that when the petitioner has been acquitted of the offence, the property could not be confiscated and the petitioner was entitled to receive the custody thereof. ( 5 ) ON the perusal of the record and the contentions advanced, it is found that the two Courts below on the appreciation of the evidence and the documents, have found that the motor pump was directly connected to the electric line and was being operated without any metered connection. As such, the theft of electricity was being committed by operating pump as the fields were irrigated. P. W. 1 P. D. Tiwari, who is an Asstt. Engineer, found that the pump was being operated on taking electricity directly from the main line. Panchanama. Ex. P-1, was prepared on the spot The property was seized under Ex. P-2 and the report (Ex. P-3) was lodged with the police. There is nothing on record to disbelieve P. D. Tiwari (P. W. 1 ). The two Courts below have concurrently held that the seized property was used for commission of the offence. Panchanama. Ex. P-1, was prepared on the spot The property was seized under Ex. P-2 and the report (Ex. P-3) was lodged with the police. There is nothing on record to disbelieve P. D. Tiwari (P. W. 1 ). The two Courts below have concurrently held that the seized property was used for commission of the offence. By giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, it cannot be concluded that no offence was committed the appellate court has only found that the petitioner was not the author of the crime. As such, the acquittal of the petitioner does not entitle him from claiming the property. The property has, therefore, been rightly confiscated. There is nothing on record to show that the findings arrived at by the two Courts below were perverse or vitiated by any defect of law. ( 6 ) IN the result, this revision has no substance and the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .