B. C. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) STATE being aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by judicial Magistrate, First Class, Modasa on 9-10-1990 in Criminal Case No. 2 of 1987 whereby the accused was tried for offences punishable under Sec. 379 of the indian Penal Code and Sec. 39 of the Electricity Act. has preferred this appeal. xxx xxx xxx ( 2 ) MR. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that evidence of the officers of the Board is not supported by independent witnesses. He submitted that merely because Panchas have not supported the version of the prosecution, evidence of independent officers ought not to have been rejected by the trial Court. He further submitted that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the evidence on the ground that they have not made inquiries as to what was the survey number wherein the electrical installation was installed. ( 3 ) AS against the aforesaid submissions of learned A. P. P. , Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the accused submitted that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence, and on appreciation, has passed an order of acquittal. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. He further submitted that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the accused committed the crime; that there was no evidence to indicate that the supply was installed in the field of the respondent- accused; that panchas have not supported the prosecution version; that in the absence of corroboration from independent source, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, Dilip, P. W. 1 who was at the relevant time working as deputy Engineer has deposed before the Court that on 3-12-1986 he was working with the Board at Himatnagar as Deputy Engineer. He was discharging his duties in the Vigilance Squad in the company of Meter Inspector D. K. Suthar, P. W. 6 and Security Guard G. R. Rajput. In the Boards vehicle, they left for checking. As per the information received after arrival at Bayad office, they went for checking at Chhevadiya village along with Mr. Patel who was working as a Junior Engineer at Bayad office. In the Boards vehicle, they left for checking. As per the information received after arrival at Bayad office, they went for checking at Chhevadiya village along with Mr. Patel who was working as a Junior Engineer at Bayad office. At 3-10 p. m. , the members of the raiding squad visited the electrical installation of the respondent-accused and found that the accused had directly connected his switch-board by taking electric supply from the overhead line which was passing over the pole and the accused was found drawing water by operating his motor. In paragraph 9 of the evidence, he has specifically pointed out that the cables were connected directly with the switch and motor and not through the meter. He has further stated that at the relevant time, the pump was drawing water with the aid of motor and the meter was not showing consumption of electrical energy though there was consumption of electricity. ( 5 ) VIDE Exh. 22, Dilip P. W. 1 has immediately submitted an application to the Police Sub-Inspector pointing out all the details and the manner in which the theft was being committed. That report Exh. 24 also clearly indicates that the accused has put his thumb impression on the report prepared by this witness. In the application before the police, it was also pointed out that village people are likely to destroy the evidence and the staff of the Board placed at the spot where supply is installed, is in danger and, therefore, immediate steps should be taken. ( 6 ) DASHRATH Keshavlal P. W. 6 who was at the relevant time meter tester in the board was a member of the checking squad. It is clear from his evidence that the raiding party visited the site where the electric supply was provided to the accused. His evidence clearly reveals that there was theft of electricity by connecting main switch with the overhead supply line, bypassing the meter. There is nothing in the cross-examination to doubt the evidence of this witness. ( 7 ) PROSECUTION has also examined Kashiram Maganbhai P. W. 3 who was at the relevant time Junior Engineer with the Board. He visited with the aforesaid witnesses, the supply line of the accused and has clearly corroborated the version of other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, i/;. . officers of the Board. ( 7 ) PROSECUTION has also examined Kashiram Maganbhai P. W. 3 who was at the relevant time Junior Engineer with the Board. He visited with the aforesaid witnesses, the supply line of the accused and has clearly corroborated the version of other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, i/;. . officers of the Board. Therefore, his evidence need not be discussed in detail. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the accused, it is submitted thatjavarrji Ranchodji and Kanubhai manjibhai who are examined as prosecution witnesses. They have admitted their signatures in Exh. 34, the panchnama; however, they have not supported the prosecution version and have been declared hostile. On behalf of the accused, it is submitted that as these Panchas have not supported the prosecution version, the evidence of other prosecution witnesses lias been rightly rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court has given importance to this aspect and lias passed an order of acquittal. ( 9 ) SO far as Electricity Act, 1910 is concerned, it does not contemplate calling of a panch at the time of visit by the officers of the Board. The officers of the board has prepared a report, vide Exh. 24. which bears the thumb-impression of the accused. ( 10 ) IT would be relevant to consider in the instant case the provisions of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act which mandates calling of Panch when the food Inspector takes a sample. Any Food Inspector who takes any action under clause (a) of sub-sees. (1), (2), (4) or (6) of Sec. 10 has to call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and lias to take his or their signatures. The obligation which Sec. 10 (7) casts on the Food Inspector is to call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures. However, for an action under the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, the Apex Court held that the Food Inspector is not an accomplice nor is he similar to an attesting witness to a Will. However, for an action under the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, the Apex Court held that the Food Inspector is not an accomplice nor is he similar to an attesting witness to a Will. In the case of Babulal v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1277 , the Apex Court has held as under in paragraph 5 of the judgment :"even otherwise, in our view no question of the trial being vitiated for non- compliance of these provisions can arise. It is not a rule of law that the evidence of the Food Inspector cannot he accepted without corroboration. He is not an accomplice nor is it similar to the one as in the case of Wills where the law makes it imperative to examine an attesting witness under Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act to prove the execution of the Will. The evidence of the Food Inspector alone if believed can he relied on for proving that the samples were taken as required by law. At the most Courts of Fact may find it difficult in any particular case to rely on the testimony of the Food Inspector alone though we do not say that this result generally Follows. The circumstances of each case will determine the extent of the weight to be given to the evidence of the Food Inspector and what in the opinion of the Court the value of his testimony. The provisions of Sec. 10 (7) an takin to these under Sec. 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code when the premises of a citizen are searched by the police. These provisions are enacted to safeguard against any possible allegations of excesses or resort to unfair means cither by the Police Officers or by the Police inspectors under the Act. This being the object it is in the interests of the prosecuting authorities concerned to comply with the provisions of the Art, the non-compliance of which may in some cases result in their testimony being rejected. While this is so, we are not to he understood as in any way minimising the need to comply with the aforesaid salutary provisions. In this case, however there is no justification in the allegation that the provisions have not been complied with because the Panch witness had been called and his signatures taken which he admits. While this is so, we are not to he understood as in any way minimising the need to comply with the aforesaid salutary provisions. In this case, however there is no justification in the allegation that the provisions have not been complied with because the Panch witness had been called and his signatures taken which he admits. In these circumstances the Courts were justified on the evidence of the Food Inspector that he had complied with the requirements and that the samples were seized in the presence of the Panch witness whose signatures were taken in the presence of the accused. " ( 11 ) IN the instant case, the officers of the Board who have no enmity with the accused and in discharge of their duties have visited the site of the accused where they found that by tampering with the overhead line, the accused was dishonestly abstracting, consuming and or using energy. There is no rule that the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted without there being a support of a panch. When the officers visited the site. they found the aforesaid illegal act being committed by the accused. Panchas were called but if they are not supporting the prosecution, it cannot be said that the evidence of the officers of the Board who are not accomplice, is required to be rejected. ( 12 ) WHOEVER abstracts or consumes or uses electrical energy dishonestly commits a statutory theft under Sec. 39 of the Electricity Act. The theft may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence of the theft is rarely forthcoming. To facilitate proof of the theft, the section provides that the existence of artificial means tor such abstraction is prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction. The word "abstraction" should be construed liberally and in the context of Sec. 39; it means taking or appropriation. Energy may be dishonestly abstracted by artificial means or unauthorised devices. For instance, energy, before it passes through a consumers meter, may be abstracted from the main of the electric company by an unauthorised wire connecting the main with a private terminal; the connecting wire is the artificial means for abstraction. (Jagannath Singh Sohari Lal v. B. S. Kamuswamy, AIR 1966 SC 849 ). In the instant case. it is clear that the consumer was found taking unrecorded energy which is unauthorised. (Jagannath Singh Sohari Lal v. B. S. Kamuswamy, AIR 1966 SC 849 ). In the instant case. it is clear that the consumer was found taking unrecorded energy which is unauthorised. The effect of last part of Sec. 39 is that existence of unauthorised means for abstraction is prima facie evidence of dishonest abstraction. In the instant case, the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to show that energy was being consumed for drawing water by a pump which was not being recorded in the meter, not because the meter was not operating but because there was unauthorised connection from the overhead line of the Board connecting the main terminal of the accused by wires. The accused was found present at the time when the energy was consumed for drawing water through the service of the accused without the energy being recorded in the meter. In view of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the accused before energy passes through the consumers meter, abstracted from the overhead supply line by connecting wire with his private terminal, which is nothing but abstraction by artificial means. By this. the accused was found committing an offence of theft of electrical energy which is punishable under Sec. 39 of the Electricity Act. ( 13 ) THE trial Court has seriously erred in rejecting the evidence only on the ground that Panchas have not supported. The trial Court ought to have taken into consideration admitted signatures on the panchnama. One of the panch has taken photographs of the line which are produced on record and that clearly shows that the panch was present. He has taken the photographs of the installation of the accused. It is to be presumed in view of Sec. 39, that until contrary is proved abstraction. consumption or use of energy has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. Accused has admitted in his statement that it was his electrical installation and prosecution evidence clearly reveals that by passing the meter, electricity was being abstracted from the overhead supply line of the Board by an unauthorised wire connecting the main with the private terminal of the accused. In view of this, the prosecution has discharged its duty in proving the case and the accused has failed in discharging his burden. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside. In view of this, the prosecution has discharged its duty in proving the case and the accused has failed in discharging his burden. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside. The accused is held guilty of an offence punishable under Sec. 39 of the Electricity Act. .