1. Applicant has preferred this revision against the appellate judgment dated 3.11.1998, passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen in Criminal Appeal No. 115/97 whereby the conviction of the applicant under section 379 of IPC read with section 39 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen and the sentence passed on him are affirmed.

2. Applicant was tried for the offence under section 379 of IPC read with section 39 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Electricity Act') before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen. As per prosecution allegations, on 5.3.1993, about 10:30 at night, at Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Junior Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board, City Supply, Raisen upon inspection found that applicant was committing theft of electricity by abstracting direct energy from the electricity line by means of a wire unauthorisedly put by him and was using television and electric bulbs. Junior Engineer Upendra Kumar Kulshrestha, therefore, made a Panchnama in front of the staff and the panch witnesses and seized the wire, bulbs etc. and made a written complainant of theft of electricity to the Station House Officer, Raisen. On the basis of written report made by the Junior Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board, Raisen, an offence was registered against the applicant and was investigated. After due investigation, applicant was prosecuted under section 379 of IPC read with section 39 of the Electricity Act.

3. After trial, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen found the applicant guilty for committing theft of electricity and convicted him under section 379 of IPC read with section 39 of the Electricity Act and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year by judgment dated 3.10.1997 passed in Criminal Case No. 230/93.

4. In criminal appeal preferred by the applicant against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, the Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record and the legal aspects of the case, upheld the conviction of the applicant and sentence passed on him and dismissed his appeal by impugned judgment, which has been assailed in this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Courts below gravely erred in law and facts in convicting and sentencing the applicant. He further submitted that Junior Engineer of the M.P. Electricity Board was not authorized to make a complaint under section 50 of the Electricity Act and the complainant made by him was incompetent.

6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified the impugned judgment and supported the findings recorded by the Courts below.

7. Impugned judgment and records of the Lower Courts perused.

8. There is a concurrent finding of fact of two Courts below that applicant was found committing theft of electricity by abstracting direct energy from the electric line by means of a wire. The aforesaid finding of fact does not suffer from any infirmity in view of the evidence available on record, particularly, the evidence of Junior Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board Upendra Kumar Kulshrestha (PW 6) and line man Dilip Singh (PW 4). Upendra Kumar Kulshrestha (PW 6), Junior Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board, who was also Officer-in-Charge of the City Supplies, M.P. Electricity Board, Raisen also made a Panchnama (Exh. P-2) of the action taken by him against the applicant and made a written complaint (Exh. P-3) to the police.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Suleman v. State of reported in 1980 JLJ 117, submitted that Junior Engineer of the M.P. Electricity Board was not authorized to make a complaint in view of the provisions of section 50 of the Electricity Act and no prosecution could be launched on the basis of report of the Junior Engineer of the M.P. Electricity Board.

10. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand placing reliance on