Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short "the Code"), for quashing the prosecution for theft of electric energy. The corresponding trial is pending as Cr. Case no. 1550/06 in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal. ( 2. ) IN that case, vide order-dated 28. 04. 2006, charge of the offence punishable under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short "act of 1910") read with Section 379 of the IPC was framed against the petitioner. The charge was based on the material collected during investigation into an FIR lodged by Parasram Sahu, Assistant Engineer, mpseb at P. S. Nishadpura, Bhopal to this effect that on 08. 07. 2003 at about 03. 15 p. m. , at his residence situated in Gas Rahat Housing Board colony Karod, the petitioner was found abstracting electric energy by making an unauthorized connection with the LT Line. ( 3. ) SINCE the charge-sheet submitted on 15. 10. 2003 related to the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short "act of 2003") read with 379 of the IPC in the Court of ACJM, bhopal, the case was committed to the Special Court (under the Act of 2003) for trial. However, the learned Special Judge, vide order dated 08. 08. 2005, observing that Act of 2003 was brought into force in the state of Madhya Pradesh w. e. f 10. 12. 2003 made over the case for trial to the CJM who, in turn, transferred the case to the JMFC, Bhopal for disposal according to law. At the pre-charge stage, the petitioner raised an objection against cognizance of the offence under Section 39 of Act of 1910 by inviting attention of the provision of Section 50 there of. ( 4. ) AS pointed out already, the learned Magistrate, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 28. 04. 2006, while overruling the objection, proceeded to frame the charge against the petitioner with the offence punishable under Section 39 of the Act of 1910 read with Section 379 of the IPC. His revision was also dismissed vide order-dated 06. 10. 2006 passed by the ASJ designated as Special Judge (under the Act of 2003)in Cr. Revison no. 263/06. ( 5. His revision was also dismissed vide order-dated 06. 10. 2006 passed by the ASJ designated as Special Judge (under the Act of 2003)in Cr. Revison no. 263/06. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that cognizance of the offence under the Act of 1910 could not be taken as neither the first informant Asstt. Engineer nor the SHO of P. S. Nishadpura was authorized to investigate into the offence or to launch prosecution. To buttress the contention, reference has been made to the decisions of this Court in Laxmanlal vs. State of MP 1985 cri. L. J. 1133 and State of MP vs. Tunda 1995 (II) MPWN 52 however, the view expressed by the single Benches of this Court has already been overruled by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in hargyan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2003 CRI. L. J. 2936. Accordingly, the Electricity Board is a person aggrieved within the meaning of expression "persons aggrieved" occurring in Section 50 of act of 1910 (as amended by Act of 31 of 1986) and any Officer of the board who detects theft of electricity in his area of work is competent to lodge FIR and any charge-sheet on the basis of such complaint is maintainable. While answering the reference, the Division Bench, has also considered the dictum in Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 666 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in this case. ( 6. ) IN this view of the matter, no interference with a legitimate prosecution is called for. ( 7. ) THE petition, therefore, stands dismissed. As an obvious consequence, the interim stay granted on 14. 05. 2007 stands vacated.