JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondent for the offence under section 39 of Indian Electricity Act and section 379 I.P.C. According to the prosecution, on 13.12.81, a written report was lodged by the Assistant Engineer of Shivpuri of M.P.E.B. with police that on a surprise checking, the appellant was found running the thresher by taking the electricity connection directly from the electricity poll. On his report, the police had registered the offence and had challenged the respondent after the due investigation. The learned trial Court convicted the respondent, but on his appeal, the order of his conviction and sentence was set aside and the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges. The order of acquittal is based mainly on the ground that in view of the provisions of section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act (for short "the Act"), as the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Board was neither the Electric Inspector nor the aggrieved person to institute the prosecution within the meaning of the section of the Act the prosecution was bad in law. Challenging the impugned order of acquittal, it is very strenuously contended by the Panel Lawyer, Shri P.D. Agrawal that although under the first-limb of the section, PW 2 Kaptan Singh, being, Assistant Engineer was not the person provided to institute the prosecution, as he was not the Electric Inspector, yet under the second limb of section 50 of the Act, he was certainly the person aggrieved, being the responsible officer of the Electricity Board and could, therefore, validly lodge the report and set the law in motion. The contention advanced for the State-appellant may appear to be attractive, but is wholly devoid of substance. Admittedly, the prosecution in the instant case was commenced with the challan submitted by the police for an offence under section 39 of the Act read with section 379 of-the I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, but the offence was investigated by police on the F.I.R. lodged by Kaptan Singh, Assistant Engineer (PW 2) and the law, therefore, set in motion only on such report. The very object of section 50 is to prevent the prosecution for the offences against the Act by any person whosoever may desire to do so because the offence can be detected and later on proved only by persons having special qualifications. The very object of section 50 is to prevent the prosecution for the offences against the Act by any person whosoever may desire to do so because the offence can be detected and later on proved only by persons having special qualifications. The Act, therefore, provided the limitation of the prosecution by limited persons. The onus remains on the prosecution to prove the fact that the prosecution was instituted at the instance of one of the persons mentioned in section 50 of the Act. The prosecution under section 39, as envisaged under section 50 of the Act was not launched either under the instruction of the Govt. or on the report of the Electric Inspector. Witness Kaptan Singh (PW 2) is an employee of the Board and cannot be said to be the person aggrieved. The person aggrieved was Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, which is a body corporate and has undoubtedly to work through its members and officers. It is only for such exigencies that the section also provides for the initiation of prosecution through 'person aggrieved' and such person could be the person authorised by the Board, i.e. by the member of Board. The offence being cognizable the police had filed the challan after the due investigation, but it could be initiated either under the orders of the Government, or on the report of Electric Inspector or the person aggrieved. The expression 'at the instance of' occurring in section 50 does not mean on the complaint or with the sanction of but it only means 'at the asking' or 'on the suggestion of' as was observed in Provincial Government, Central Provinces and Berar v. Yogenandan (AIR 1944 Nagpur 380). The Assistant Engineer, Kaptan Singh is not stated to have been authorised by the Board under section 50 of the Act. Witness Kaptan Singh (PW 2) also did not state that he was in any manner authorised to institute or initiate the prosecution. Therefore, in view of the authority of Suleman v. State of M.P. ( 1980 JLJ 117 ), the Assistant Engineer, not being competent to launch the prosecution under section 39 of the Act by lodging the report with the police, the acquittal of the respondent by the Court below could not be said to be improper, unjust or illegal. In view of the above, the State's appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.