ORDER :- Petition to revise the order of the learned Sub-Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, negativing the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner that he could not be prosecuted for the offence under S.379 I.P.C. read with S.39 of the Indian Electricity Act, in view of the prior case for the same offence having ended in his favour. The petitioner was prosecuted in C.C. No.1185 of 1960 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Periakulam, for the same offence, and he was convicted by the trial court, but he was acquitted by the appellate court on the ground that the non-compliance with the provisions of S.50 of the Indian Electricity Act was a bar to the prosecution in that case. Subsequently, the prosecution filed the present case after complying with the provisions of S.50 of the Indian Electricity Act.

2. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sec.50 of the Indian Electricity Act cannot apply to an offence punishable under S.379 I.P.C. read with S.39 of the Indian Electricity Act, as it is not an offence against the Indian Electricity Act. He relied on the decision in Bombay State v. Maganlal Chunilal, AIR 1956 Bom 354, in support of his contentio