( 1 ) THE petitioners who are A-1 and A-2 in the crime seek to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C. C. No. 29 of 2002 pending on the file of the learned I Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special tribunal Constituted under the Indian electricity (A. P. amendment) Act, 2000, hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE Inspector of Police, Vigilance and arts Team-I, A. P. Transco, Hyderabad, laid the charge sheet against the petitioners under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian electricity Act, 1910 (for brevity the Act ). It was alleged inter alia that the Assistant divisional Engineer/dpe-II/hyderabad (south)/apcpdcl visited the premises of the petitioners on 15-9-2000 at 16. 00 hours and noticed that rubber product industry was being run therein underthe name and style of "m/s. Ganesh Industry". The premises was given a service connection bearing No. M2-5137/iii. One Kasinath Adikari represented to be the worker in the factory was present and in his presence the ADE observed the meter and found the meter box seal was tampered and the sealing wire was freely coming out from the seal bit. After opening the meter box, he further noticed that two numbers seals on the right side of meter cover were also tampered. He then tested the meter on load conditions and removed the meter box seal without cutting the seal wire and seized in a sealed cover. The meter box was also sealed with DPE seal and then the meter box was referred for MRT testing and on such testing it was found the seals 109195, 196 intact and also the C. T. box seal. He further found C. T. chamber left side seal bits and right side seal bits in tact. However meter cover right side seal bits were found with bulging marks on one side of the seal bit i. e. sealing wire was removed and inserted. Under the above circumstances, he was of the view that the consumer has meddled with the meter mechanism to suppress the actual consumption and thereby pilferaged the power. The loss was temporarily estimated at Rs. 3,15,510/ -. On a complaint given by him, the crime was registered and investigated into, and eventually the charge sheet was laid. Under the above circumstances, he was of the view that the consumer has meddled with the meter mechanism to suppress the actual consumption and thereby pilferaged the power. The loss was temporarily estimated at Rs. 3,15,510/ -. On a complaint given by him, the crime was registered and investigated into, and eventually the charge sheet was laid. ( 3 ) IT is the contention of Sri D. V. Nagarjuna babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that excepting the opinion of the mrt laboratory that the meter cover right side seal bits No. H-44850, 44852 with the impression APSEB/mrt-Y/1230 were having bulging marks on one side of the seal bit, nothing more was alleged against the petitioners as to how they indulged in dishonest abstraction or consumption or use of energy as envisaged under Section 39 of the Act and as to how the petitioner interfered with the meters using the energy as envisaged under Section 44 of the Act. It is his further contention that the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet do not fulfill the basic ingredients of either Section 39 or Section 44 of the Act. ( 4 ) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel seeks to place reliance upon a judgment of the Madras High Court in TNEB, rep. by its Asst. Executive Engineer/operation and Maintenance Town, Arcot, Vellore Dt. v. A. Mani. That was a case where rice mill belonging to the respondent therein was inspected by the engineers of the Electricity board, who suspected that there was a tampering of the seal in the meter. They noticed that the seals of the meter on the right and left side were completely varied. The respondent was prosecuted before a Court of law under Sections 39 and 44 of the Act. The Madras High Court was of the view, underthe circumstances, that since no foreign materials had been seized at the time of inspection by the Engineers of the department, it would only lead to the conclusion that nothing had been done by the consumer to commit theft of energy and in the absence of any foreign materials coupled with absence of evidence on the part of prosecution relating to the manner by which theft was committed, it was a case of mere surmise and conjecture. ( 5 ) FROM out of the allegations made inter alia in the charge sheet that there was a bulging marks on one side of the seal bit, no reasonable inference could be drawn that it was a case of removal of seal wire and insertion of the same afresh. The prosecution should be launched basing upon relevant material. Burden is always upon the prosecution to prove that the charge of pilferage of energy is grave and commensurate with the gravity of the offence, it is required to be shown by the prosecution that it was a case of pilferage. On mere surmise or suspicion, no prosecution can be launched. The opinion given by the MRT laboratory only discloses the bulging of the seal bit on the right side of the meter cover. All other seals were found to be in tact. It is not shown either from the opinion of the laboratory or the evidence gathered by the investigating agency that as to how it could be inferred from the circumstance of bulging of the meter seals on one side that it was a case of pilferage of energy. The investigating agency failed to gather any evidence or any expert opinion on that aspect. From mere circumstance that the left side seal bits of the meter were found to have bulging marks on one side of the seal bit, which is not compatible with the only one inference of pilferage, it cannot legitimately be concluded with precision that it was a case of tampering of the meter. No such opinion in fact has been given by the laboratory. In view of the same, i see every force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the circumstances of the case that the essential ingredients that constitute the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Act have not been made out in this case. In that view of the matter, no purpose would be served in allowing the criminal case to be tried. ( 6 ) IN the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioners are hereby quashed.