( 1. ) THE applicant-accused Jhalkansingh having been convicted under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of the IPC and the other applicant-accused Sumer, having been convicted under Section 39 of the Electricity Act read with Section 379/109 of the I. P. C. and each having been sentenced to pay the fine of Rs. 250/and in default of fine, one months S. I. by both the Courts below, present revision is now preferred against the same.

( 2. ) ON 14-1-1976. meter reader Bhandari hd gone to the tube well of the applicant-accused Jhalkansingh. In the cover of the meter, a hole was found and one wooden piece was found inserted and meter at that time was not recording the consumption of energy, although the tube well, at the relevant time, was in operation. At the relevant time. Jhalkansingh was not present, but the other applicant-accused Sumer was present who took out the inserted piece of wood and threw it away. Seizures were duly made and on the written complaint of the officer-in-charge of the M. P. Electricity Circle Gadarwada. both the applicants-accused were put up for trial for the offence for which they have been convicted and sentenced. The applicants-accused took the plea of alibi. The trial Court convicted and sentenced both applicants-accused. Appeal preferred by them was also dismissed and hence now, their present revision.

( 3. ) THE learned Counsel for the applicants-accused has urged before me that the F. I. R. in the case, being delayed, does not deserve reliance. It is, next, urged that institution of the prosecution in the instant case has not been made by the proper person as enjoined by Section 50 of the Electricity Act. It is also urged that the conviction, as made, was bad in law. inasmuch as, conviction could not be made both under Section 39 of the Electricity Act and under Section 379 of the Penal Code. It is also urged that the applicants-accused could not be punished twice, inasmuch as, the applicant-accused Jhalkansingh has already been penalised by imposition of fine of Rs. 817. 92 p.

( 4. ) I have considered the arguments pressed before me. So far as the grievance regarding the delay in lodging the F. I. R. is concerned, it is without any substance. The original written report of the officer-incharge of the M. P. Electricity Circle Gadarwada is on record. It is dated 18-1-1976. This report is addressed to the police station Gadarwada and had been prepared four days after the incident. There are many endorsements on the body of this report showing certain actions on the part of the officers in verifying the truth of the report. It is on the basis of this report that the Police Inspector Gadarwada is found to have prepared the F. I. R. incorporating therein all the contents of the written report of the officer-in-charge M. P. Electricity Circle, Gadarwada. The report is not delayed at all. and does not create any suspicion whatsoever in the matter of contents therein. Suspicion is equally set at rest after considering the other documents which had been prepared on the very date when the meter was checked on 14-11976. One such document is Ex. P-3 signed by the applicant-accused Jhalkansingh himself.

( 5. ) NOW, there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below on the material points that the meter had been tampered with. It has been held by both the Courts below that on checking of the meter by the meter reader Bhandarl- on the relevant date, the tube well was actually working at the relevant time. The seal of the meter was intact but a hole was made in the body of the meter and one wooden piece was found inserted therein, with the result that the meter was not working and was not recording the consumption of the electrical energy which it should have normally done, since the tube-well at the relevant time was running, The tube well, admittedly, was of the ownership of Jhalkansingh. who, at the relevant time, was not persent. His servant viz. the other applicant-accus