The complaint for theft of electricity can be lodged by any officer of the Electricity Board, including Junior Engineers, as 'persons aggrieved' under S.50 of the Electricity Act.

1.The instant appeal is against the judgment and order dated 19.08.1996 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bemetara, District - Durg in Criminal Case No. 716/1991, whereby the respondent - accused has been acquitted of the charges under S.379 of IPC read with S.39 of the [The Indian] Electricity Act, 1910 (Act 9 of 1910), (for short 'the Electricity Act').

2. The respondent - accused was tried for the offence punishable under S.379 of IPC read with S.39 of the Electricity Act before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bemetara, District, Durg, wherein, he was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution should have been lodged by the Electrical Inspector and as such the prosecution at the behest of the Junior Engineer of the Electricity Board is a nullity, which could not have been done. In a result the accused were acquitted of the charges.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case, is that, one Seetaram who was resident of village - Khamariya was using a electrical pump in his field by illegally obtaining the electricity line by hooking on to the wires and was using the pump. He therefore had committed a theft of Rs. 844/- towards the energy charges. It was the case of prosecution that while he was committing the theft of the electric energy, he was caught red handed and the pump and the starter which was in use was seized. Subsequently, the charge - sheet was filed under S.379 of IPC read with S.39 of the Electricity Act by the prosecution. The respondent - accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. In a statement under S.313 of CrPC, the accused submitted that he had applied for a permanent line, which was under consideration and therefore, the temporary connection of his own was obtained. The prosecution in the case had examined the Assistant Lineman namely Nilkanth Verma as PW - 1, Prakash Chand Jain who is Junior Engineer as PW - 2 and Gadaram, who was working as a helper in the Electricity Board as PW - 3. The FIR of theft was made in this case was by PW - 2 i.e. Junior Engineer of Electricity Department. According to the statement of this PW - 2, Prakash Chand Jain, he states that he was working as Junior Engineer in Electricity Board from January, 1991. He states further that on 30.09.1991, Seetaram was committing theft of the electric energy and was running his pump at his field which was situated at Saja Road. He further states that Seetaram had dragged the line near the field of Jagdish Kalar, wherein, the electric pole exists. The witness submits when he inspected the spot at that time the pump was running by illegally using the electricity and pump was of 3 horse power. When it was asked to the accused, he submitted that he was running the pump for last 15 days. The witness further states that he had inspected the spot and affirmed to the fact that the accused had taken the direct line for the pump. He has further submitted that after such inspection Panchnama was prepared by Ex. / P - 1 and seizure was made of articles used in connection and the map of the spot was also prepared which was marked as Ex. / P - 2. He further states that after preparing Panchnama it was informed to the police in writing by report Ex. / P - 3 which bears his signature from A to A. On the basis of such written report, the FIR was registered by Ex. / P - 4. He further states that the police, after investigation has seized the wire, starter etc. by Ex. / P - 5 and the map of the spot was also prepared by Ex. / P - 6 which bears his signature. The witness further says the pump which had been running for 15 days by the accused for that the Board had sustained the loss of Rs. 844/- as against its electric charges.

5. Similarly, the witness, Nilkanth Verma (PW - 1) stat