Judgment :- (Criminal Revision case under Section 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C. against the Judgment in CRL.A No.154 dated 16-10-2002 on the file of the Court of the VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Machilipatnam, preferred against the order in CC 270 1995 dated 22-09-1999 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikalur) The petitioner was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he has to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, after he was convicted for the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Section 379 of I.P.C. In appeal, the conviction and sentence have been confirmed. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this revision. The revision is filed mainly on the following grounds; Firstly, that the prosecution had failed to prove that the petitioner was the consumer or owner/possessor of the fish tank where the electric energy was being pilfered. Secondly, that the prosecution has not complied with Section 50 of the Act and thirdly, that there was an abnormal unexplained delay in filing the First Information Report and lastly, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 was inconsistent and discrepant. The case of the prosecution as narrated by the Courts below was that on 05.03.1995 at 2.25 p.m., Pw-1 and his staff inspected the fish tank of the petitioner/accused. During the inspection, it was observed that the accused was pilfering electrical energy by directly tapping the L.T.3 Phase 4 wire over head line by means of PVC SC Alluminium wire through switch board for pumping-in water into the fish tank with 5 HP and 7 HP motors. The accused, therefore, caused loss of Revenue to the APSE Board and the loss was estimated to the tune of Rs.1,07,575/-. After inspection, PW-1 prepared a report and gave it to the Inspector of Police, Vijayawada, who registered a case as Crime No.6 of 1995 under Section 39 of the Act and took up investigation. During the investigations, statements of witnesses were recorded and thereafter, charge sheet was filed. After inspection, PW-1 prepared a report and gave it to the Inspector of Police, Vijayawada, who registered a case as Crime No.6 of 1995 under Section 39 of the Act and took up investigation. During the investigations, statements of witnesses were recorded and thereafter, charge sheet was filed. Coming to the first point that the accused had nothing to do with the fish tank in which the pilferage was seen, the accused, in defence, examined himself as DW-1 and also produced DW-2 as his witness, who was the Village Administrative Officer. Both these persons stated that there was no land or tank in the name of the accused in the village either as owner or as a tenant. DW-3 was also examined, who was an Electrical Engineer, Mandavalli, who deposed that there was no Service Connection in the name of the accused. In the light of this evidence of the defence, the evidence of prosecution has to be seen. PW-1 was an Assistant Division Engineer at the relevant time. He stated that on 05.03.1995 at 14.20 hours, he, along with his Additional Assistant Engineer, visited Unikili village. When they reached the fish tank of Arekipudi Sankara Rao/accused, they found one electric Motor of 5 HP and another of 7.5 HP were under operation in bailing-in the water into the fish tank of the accused. The power supply was taken directly tapping power from L.T. line through PVC Alluminium wire. At the time of the inspection, the accused was present. He prepared notes of inspection at the spot. He also recorded the statement of the accused and obtained his signature. Ex.P-1 were the notes of inspection, Ex.P-2 was the statement of accused on the notes of inspection. He assessed the pilferage of energy, then seized the Alluminium wire and other material and entrusted the property to A.D. (Operations). Then he gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police along with the property seized. Ex.P-3 was the report given by him to the Inspector of Police. M.Os.1, 2 and 3 were the material objects seized by him. In his cross-examination, he stated that he could not give the Survey Number of the fish tank for which the pilferage of energy took place. He did not file any document showing the ownership of the fish tank. M.Os.1, 2 and 3 were the material objects seized by him. In his cross-examination, he stated that he could not give the Survey Number of the fish tank for which the pilferage of energy took place. He did not file any document showing the ownership of the fish tank. He had not taken the assistance of any Village Administrative Officer to identify the owner of the fish tank. The accused had no Service Connection in his name. Except the accused, no other person was present at the time of inspection. He sent Ex.P-2 report on 06.03.1995. He did not make any attempt to secure the presence of any panch witness. He did not seize any electrical motor from the scene of offence. PW-2, who was an Inspector of Police, stated that on 14.03.1995 at 11 a.m., he received the complaint from PW-1 along with the original inspection notes. Thereupon he registered a case in Crime No.6 of 1995 under Section 39 of the Act and submitted F.I.R. to all concerned. On the same day, he examined PW-1 and LW-2 and recorded their statements. In his cross-examination he stated that on the same day he received the report, he sent it to the Court. He had not visited the scene of offence. He had not received any document from PW-1 to show that the accused was the owner of the fish tank, except his inspection notes. The inspection notes did not contain any Survey Number or boundaries of the fish tank. PW-3 is another Police Officer, who filed the charge sheet. Now, the whole case rests upon the evidence of PW-1, as PWs.2 and 3 are the investigating officers. PW-1 relied on Ex.P-2, which according to him, was the statement made by the accused. This statement, at best, could be taken as an extra-judicial confession, which was retracted. But this extra-judicial confession, in my view, could not become the sole basis for conviction in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. Though it may not be necessary that the person who is pilfering the electric energy should be the owner/possessor or tenant of the premises, in the present case, as the prosecution did not establish any connection of the accused with the land, the statement, on which the prosecution has relied, cannot be basis for conviction. Though it may not be necessary that the person who is pilfering the electric energy should be the owner/possessor or tenant of the premises, in the present case, as the prosecution did not establish any connection of the accused with the land, the statement, on which the prosecution has relied, cannot be basis for conviction. According to PW-1, he was accompanied by another Engineer Sri Sura Reddy, but he did not even ask the said Sura Reddy to be the witness for the Statement of the accused. Sri Sura Reddy was not even produced into the Court as a witness. No steps were taken by PW-1 to get an independent witness during the inspection or during the seizure or during recording of the statement of the accused. Therefore, it is highly doubtful whether such a statement was made or not. This statement becomes also doubtful in view of the fact that the inspection was made on 05.03.1995, the inspection report was prepared by PW-1 on the same day and according to him, on 06.03.1995 he sent it to the Police. But according to PW-2, he received the report on 14.03.1995. This eight days’ delay has not at all been explained. Coming to another argument that in terms of Section 50 of the Act, no person can be prosecuted except at the instance of the Government of Electricity Board or an Electrical Inspector or of a person aggrieved of the same. Under Section 36 of the Act, the Government has been given power to appoint qualified persons to be the Electrical Inspectors and every such Electrical Inspector would be entitled to exercise the power and perform the functions of an Electrical Inspector under the Act within such areas or in respect of such class of works and electrical installations and subject to such restrictions as the appropriate Government may direct. Therefore, in order to successfully lodge a complaint, the complaint has to show that he is appointed in terms of Section 36 of the Act and his appointment has been notified in the Official Gazette. The charge sheet in this case has been filed by the Inspector of Police (vigilance), for Electrical Department. But it is nowhere shown that he was an Inspector appointed in terms of Section 36 of the Act. For all these reasons, the conviction of the petitioner/accused cannot be sustained. Therefore, the revision is allowed. The charge sheet in this case has been filed by the Inspector of Police (vigilance), for Electrical Department. But it is nowhere shown that he was an Inspector appointed in terms of Section 36 of the Act. For all these reasons, the conviction of the petitioner/accused cannot be sustained. Therefore, the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are set aside and his bail bonds are cancelled. He is entitled for refund of fine amount paid, if any.