JUDGMENT N.P. Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No. 392/82 of the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On 9.4.1982, when the complainant, J.A. Kuldeep (PW-3), Sub-Engineer of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board was on supervision duty alongwith his lines man found the respondent running a thresher by taking electricity direct from the pole. 3. On a written report submitted by the complainant at police Station Baldevgarh F.I.R. (Ex. P-2) was drawn up and investigation proceeded. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the respondent. After the cognizance the trial of the respondent commenced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh. 4. The defence was false implication. The prosecution examined in all six witnesses at the trial. 5. The Chief Judicial Magistrate on consideration of the evidence acquitted the respondent. As against that the State has come in appeal. 6. Shri R.K. Khare, Government Advocate, has contended that there was extra judicial confession of the respondent. The respondent has confessed his guilt before the complainant J.K. Kuldeep, Sub Engineer. The prosecution has also proved extra judicial confession as also the prosecution case by cogent evidence. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondent was bad in law. 7. Shri Manish Datt, learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the complainant was not legally competent to launch the prosecution against the respondent for theft the electrical energy. It is the Electrical Inspector or a person authorised by the Government can launch the prosecution for theft of electrical energy as provided under Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act. Reliance was placed in the case of Avatar Singh Vs. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 666. The contention of Shri Datt is well founded. 8. It is relevant to mention here the provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, which reads as follows:- 50. Institution of prosecution. - 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. 9. Institution of prosecution. - 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. 9. On perusal of the evidence it is obvious that the prosecution has not led any evidence that the prosecution was launched against the respondent at the instance of the Government by a person or by the electrical inspector. Complainant J.K. Kuldeep (PW-3) has not stated anything that he was an electrical inspector or he was competent to launch the prosecution for theft of electrical energy against the respondent. 10. In Avtar Singh (supra) the apex Court has observed that dishonest abstraction of electricity is an offence against the act and not under the Penal Code. It was further observed that onus of proving the fact that prosecution was instituted at the instance of a person mentioned in Section 50 of the Electricity Act, is on the prosecution. 11. In the instance case the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the complainant was authorised under the Act to launch the prosecution against the respondent. 12. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the acquittal of the respondent. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed