The General Manager of DESU is an aggrieved person as far as the theft of electricity supplied by DESU is concerned. Therefore, a prosecution instituted by the Zonal Superintendent at the instance of the General Manager is valid.

Prithvi Raj, J. :- The respondent was tried on a complaint filed under S. 39 of the Electricity Act read with S. 397 I. P. C. on the allegation that he had taken a temporary connection from a pole near Arya Samaj Mandir near Quarter No. 168- E, Dev Nagar, without a meter and thereby dishonestly consumed electrical energy. The trial court by its impugned judgment dated March 6, 1975. holding that the complaint filed by Shri K. L. Katyal, Zonal Superintendent, Zone No. 6, Karol Bagh Delhi, was not competent within the requirements of Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter the Act), and in that view of the matter dismissed the complaint and recorded acquittal of the respondent. The complainant feeling aggrieved has filed the present appeal.

1A. Section 50 of the Act reads as follows :-

"50. Institution of prosecutions.- No prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against this Act or any rule, license or order thereunder, except at the instance of the Government or an Electrical Inspector, or of a person aggrieved by the same."

2. The question therefore that arises for consideration in this case is whether Shri Katyal was an aggrieved person or was acting at the instance of an aggrieved person. He certainly was not acting at the instance of the Government or an Electrical Inspector. When questioned about his capacity to file the complaint, he invited attention of the court to two orders, one of May 17, 1968, which was reiterated by a subsequent order of August 6, 1970, both issued by the General Manager of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (herein DESU). By these orders, the General Manager laid down procedure to be followed in cases of theft of electricity. He required that as soon as theft of electric energy was suspected, discreet verification should be made by inspecting the premises to ascertain whether a prima facie case of stealing was there. Thereafter, raid should be conducted by the district staff with the help of the local police and photographer under the guidance of the competent officer of the rank of Zonal Superintendent A. E. After conducting the raid, a report should be lodged with the police under Section 379, I. P. C. read with Section 39 of the Act. Further in order that price of the stolen energy may be recovered, the General Manager required that the details of the theft should be reported to him where in his office the quantum of energy would be assessed and necessary steps for the recovery of the amount with his permission would be taken. The statement of Shri Katyal shows that he was acting at the instance of the General Manager in pursuance of the aforesaid circular. According to the Municipal Corporation Act (herein the Corporation Act), distribution of electricity in Delhi is a function performed by the DESU. Section 53 of the Corporation Act prescribes the functions of the Delhi Electric Supply Committee and envisages that this Committee shall be responsible for the conduct and management of the DESU and for the efficient discharge of such responsibilities shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as are conferred or imposed by or under the Corporation Act. The executive powers for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act pertaining to DESU vest in the General Manager (Electricity), as prescribed by Section 64 of the Corporation Act. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the General Manager (Electricity) is one of the aggrieved persons as far as the theft of electricity supplied by DESU is concerned.

3. Further, sub-section (1) of Sec. 476 of the Corporation Act read with subsection (2) thereof, shows that the General Manager of the DESU was competent to take legal proceedings in respect of any offence against the Act. Shri Katyal while acting in pursuance of the general orders issued by the General Manager, was therefore acting at the instance of the General Manager. Sec. 50 of the Act does not require sanctio