Chief Engineer of Electric Supply Corporation is an aggrieved person.

This appeal is remanded by the Supreme Court for determination of the question whether the appellant (before the Supreme Court) is guilty of an offence under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, as the question whether the Chief Engineer, Kumbakonam Electric Supply Corporation was the “ person aggrieved” had not been determined by this Court.

Six persons were tried by the Sub-Magistrate of Papanasam for an offence under section 379, Indian Penal Code read with section 39 of the Indian. Electricity Act, 1910 and section 44 (c) and (d) of the said Act. All the accused were acquitted by the Sub-Magistrate and the State filed an appeal against the order of acquittal During the hearing of the appeal in this Court, it was submitted that the prosecution of an offence alleged to have, been committed by the accused under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act could. not be instituted except at the instance of an “ aggrieved person” . The question whether dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of electrical enemy which was deemed to be theft by virtue, of section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, will amount to an. offence against that Act, or one under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench1 answered the reference as follows:

“The offence of dishonest abstraction, consumption or user of electricity will not be one coming within the mischief of section 5O of the Indian Electricity Act, but one under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 39 of that Act.”

After the expression of this opinion by the Full Bench, viz., the offence was one under the Indian Penal Code and hence section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, had no application, the preliminary objection that “ the person as grieved” had not launched the prosecution did not arise. On the facts, this Court allowed the appeal against the first accused alone holding him guilty under section 379, Indian Penal Code, read with section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. On appeal, the Supreme Court, in view of its decision in Avatar Singh v. State of Punjab1, holding that “dishonest abstraction of the electricity mentioned in section 39 of the Act cannot be an offence under the Indian Penal Code” , set aside the conviction of the appellant under section 379, Indian Penal Code. But as the petitioner was also charged under section 39 of the Indian. Electricity Act and as the questions whether the accused was guilty or not under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and whether the Chief Engineer, on the facts of the case, may be regarded as the “ person aggrieved” to enable him to institute the proceeding, were not considered by this Court, the Supreme Court remanded the case with a direction that the question whether the appellant was guilty of an offence under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 may be determined. In pursuance of this remand, the matter comes up before this Court for disposal.

The learned Public Prosecutor at the time of the hearing of the appeal, requested that he may be permitted to adduce additional evidence and mark certain documents. That petition was ordered, as it was felt that in the circumstances of the case, the material documents should be permitted, to be marked in evidence and that the Chief Engineer, Kumbakonam Electric Supply Corporation should be examined. The Chief Engineer was accordingly examined by this Court, and Exhibits P-16 and P-17 were filed.

Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, provides as follows:

“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 Goernment or an Electrical Inspector, or of a person aggrieved by the same.”

In this case, the licensee is the Kumbakonam Electric Supply Corporation and the question is whether the prosecution is instituted by “a person aggrieved”.

The accused applied for a temporary conne