L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is being tried for the offence under Section 39 of indian Electricity Act and 304 (A) of IPC in Spl. SC No. 186 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. ( 2 ) HE filed Criminal MP No. 722 of 2002 under Section 227 Cr. PC to discharge him of the offence under Section 39 of the indian Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The reason pleaded by him was that under Section 50 of the Act, the cognizance of the offences under the act can be taken only on a complaint submitted by the Electricity Board or inspector of Electricity or any aggrieved person and not on the basis of a complaint submitted by a person who does not fit into those referred to in the section. The Trial Court rejected the petition through its order dated 30-10-2002. Hence this revision. ( 3 ) SRI C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 50 of the Act is clear and unambiguous and it permits initiation of prosecution under the Act or Rules made thereunder, only at the instance of the government, Electricity Board or electrical Inspector and not at the instance of private individuals. It is his case that the expression "party aggrieved by the same" occurring under Section 50 of the act has to be read in the context of what was referred to therein, but not in isolation. It is his case that the complaint was submitted by one Mr. Kamal Basha alleging that his son was electrocuted on account of the pilferage of electricity by the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that initiation of prosecution provided for under Section 50 of the Act can be at the instance of government, Electricity Board or even any person who is aggrieved by the pilferage. According to him, the complainant is aggrieved inasmuch as his son died on account of the pilferage committed by the petitioner and the consequent electrocution. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had drawn electricity from a nearby transmission line and connected it to the fence wire around his field. One Mr. According to him, the complainant is aggrieved inasmuch as his son died on account of the pilferage committed by the petitioner and the consequent electrocution. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had drawn electricity from a nearby transmission line and connected it to the fence wire around his field. One Mr. Dasthagiri who was passing through the field came in contact with the same and got electrocuted and died instantly. Therefore the petitioner was charged with offence under Section 39 of indian Electricity Act and Section 304 (A) 1pc. The present controversy is only to the maintainability of the charge under section 39 of the Act against the petitioner. There is no controversy as to the charge under Section 304-A IPC and the petitioner did not seek discharge of the said offence. ( 6 ) THE basis for seeking discharge of the offence under Section 39 is that the complaint was submitted by one Mr. Kamal basha who is not at all concerned or connected with the Government, Electricity board or Electrical Inspectorate. The imputation against the petitioner under section 39 is on the basis of the complaint submitted by the said Kamal Basha. Neither the Government nor the Electricity board nor the Inspector of Electricity have submitted any complaint in this case. Section 50 of the Indian Electricity act, 1910 reads as under : institution of prosecutions :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 a State electricity Board] or an [electrical Inspector], or of a person aggrieved by the same. ( 7 ) IN Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 666 , it was held that the requirement under Section 50 applies not only to the offences under Section 40 to 47 of the Act but also one under Section 39. The question, however, is as to whether the complainant in the present case would answer the description "person aggrieved by the same". ( 8 ) READ in isolation "person aggrieved" can rope in several categories of persons, including the one, who feels aggrieved by the acts or omissions on the part of the accused. The question, however, is as to whether the complainant in the present case would answer the description "person aggrieved by the same". ( 8 ) READ in isolation "person aggrieved" can rope in several categories of persons, including the one, who feels aggrieved by the acts or omissions on the part of the accused. However, the supreme Court while interpreting Section 50 held:"the object of Section 50 is to prevent prosecution for offences against the Act being instituted by any one who chooses to do so because the offences can be proved by men possessing special convictions. That is why, it is left only to the parties concerned with the offences and the persons aggrieved by it to initiate prosecution. " ( 9 ) VIEWED from this background, the relative of a person who is electrocuted cannot be said to be aggrieved by the offence. The complainant, in this case, may have been certainly aggrieved by the death of the victim. The same, however, cannot be factor to bring him within the description person aggrieved. ( 10 ) FURTHER, the rule of ejusdem generis insists that where several categories of persons or things are referred to in a section each one should suit into the genus or category. All the words or expressions used in such provisions should contain contextual similarity. It is evident that the authorities referred to in the Section are government, Electricity Board and Electrical inspector. All the three are the Government or statutory authorities. They have several features in common, being creatures of statute and endowed with statutory power. The person aggrieved has to be nearer to those which are already referred in the section, such as licensed agencies for generation of transmission of electricity etc. , and not an ordinary individual, howsoever, aggrieved he may have been on account of the acts or omissions of the accused. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, initiation of the prosecution against the petitioner, insofar as it relates to the offence under Section 39 of the Act, was not maintainable, in that, it was not instituted by the authorities stipulated under Section 50 of the Act. The petitioner was therefore entitled to be discharged of the said offence. The Criminal Revision case is accordingly allowed. Criminal MP no. 722 of 2002 in Spl. SC No. 186 of 2001 shall stand allowed. The petitioner was therefore entitled to be discharged of the said offence. The Criminal Revision case is accordingly allowed. Criminal MP no. 722 of 2002 in Spl. SC No. 186 of 2001 shall stand allowed. However, the charge against the petitioner under Section 304 (A) shall remain untouched. The petitioner shall be liable to be proceeded for the same in accordance with law by the competent Court.