M.B.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE above -named accused -appellant a consumer of electricity for agricultural purposes, has been convicted under Sections 333 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the former count he has been sentenced to five years 5 rigorous imprisonment; under the second count, to one year's and six months rigorous imprisonment and under the third count also to the same imprisonment. The substantive sentences on each count were to run concurrently.
(2.) IN brief, the case of the prosecution is that in village Dhankoli, the accused -appellant has lands measuring 17 Bighas, and the fields are irrigated from a well. The accused appellant has electric connection on his well and as such he is a consumer of electricity of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB). There were same complaints about the low voltage, and therefore, on January 19, 1975, Assistant Engineer, O. P. Sharma, PW 8 who was then posted at Deedwana, along with Junior Engineer, Mohan Narain Mathur, PW 1, Bhanwar Lal, PW 2, Aja Ram PW 3, helper, went in a jeep of the department to village -Dhankoli, When the party, headed by O. P. Sharma reached the well of the accused -appellant at about 12.00 noon, Hukmi Chand the son of accused -appellant ran away towards the 'Kothari', where the pumping set was installed. But, before Hukmi C(sic) and reached the 'Kothari' O. P. Sharma, PW 8 and others reached there and found that though the meter was stop but the motor and the pumping set were working. He also noticed that there was a minute whole on the side of meter and a wire was introduced through it, as a result of which, the motor and the pumping set were working, but, the consumption of the electricity was not being recorded in the meter. Hukmi Chand, the son of the accused -appellant ran away, and thereafter, the accused -appellant arrived there with a lathi in his hand It is alleged that the accused appellant gave a 'lathi' blow on the foot of O.P. Sharma, as a result of which, he received injury. When Mohan Narain Mathur, PW 1 Intervened, he was also given beating. Farther, the case of the prosecution is that she accused -appellant did not allow O. P. Sharma and the others to proceed, and they were wrongly confined for about four hours. Thereafter, on the intervention of the brother of the accused O.P. Sharma and the other were allowed to proceed. On January 20, 1975 a report, Ex. P. 1, was lodged by O.P. Sharma in Police Station -D edwana. There a case was registered, and the investigation was set in motion. The injuries of O. P. Sharma, PW 8 and Mohan Narain Mathur, PW 1, were examined by Dr. Laxman Singh, PW 7, who en examining O.P. Sharma found that there was a fracture of right fibule lower and swelling of right foot on dorsum and lower part of right leg and swelling of ring finget of the left hand. Injury No 1 was grievous while Nos 2 and 3 were simple. An X Ray was taken by the technician under the supervision of Dr. Laxman Singh. and it revealed a fracture. On examining Mohan Narain Mathur, the doctor found that there was 6' x 3' on lateral side of left leg in middle. After investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the accused and others. But, the others were acquitted, and the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The plea of the accused appellant was of bare denial. But, Hukmi Chand, the son of the accused, appellant came out with a plea that seeing the jeep he ran away, and the person belonging to the Electricity Department also chased him, and while so chasing, they fell on the ground and received injuries. The accused persons examined one Rikhma Ram, the brother of accused, in defence. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the accused -appellant is shat for an offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, a prosecution can only be instituted against a persuant the instance of the Government of the Electrical Inspector or any 'person aggrieved'. He submits that an Assistant Engineer of Rajasthan State Elcetricity Board cannot be said to be a such person and as such no proceeding under Section 39 of the Act, can be instituted at his instance under Section 50 of the Act In support his contention, the learned advocate has placed reliance on Doolchand v. State 1956 R. L. W. 327. It was held in that case that the person was only a Government servant, and as such cannot be said to be a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 50 of the Act. With respect, the view of the learned Judge docs not appear to be correct An Assistant Engineer in -Charge of a Sub -Divisional Office of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board is a 'person aggrieved' in case a theft of electricity takes place in his area. In Avtar Singh appellant v. State of Punjab respondent : 1965CriLJ605 It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the object of Section 50 is to prevent prosecution for offence against the Act being instituted by any one who chooses to do so because the offence can be proved by msn possessing special qualifications. That is why it is left only to the authorities concerned with the offence and the 'person aggrieved' by it to initiate the prosecution. It was further held that tie onus of proving the fact that prosecution has been instituted at the instance of one of persons mentioned in Section 50 of the Act, is on the prosecution. In Om Prakash v. State 1972 WLN 449 it was held that a person directly in charge of the property of the Bond will be covered by the description 'person aggrieved' occurring in Section 50 of the Act. In that case the Assistant Engineer of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Sujangarb, had reported the thefs. It was held that he obviously acted for and on behalf of the Board and therefore, the prosecution must be regarded as regularly instituted at the instance of the 'pan On aggrieved' as laid down in Section 50 of the Act. In Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma and Ors. appellants v. State of Bihar and Anr. respondents : 1967CriLJ409 their Lordships observed that the P.E. S. Co., however, is a body corporate and must act only through its directors or officers. It can, therefore, be said that as the Rajasthan Slate Electricity Board is a body corporate, is can only act through its officers. A report lodged by the Assistant Engineer of Sub -Division of the Rajasthan Electricity Board is covered by the description of 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 50 of the Act, and as such he can institute the prosecution.
(3.) THE second contention of the learned advocate is that there is no material on record that the accused appellant know to the fact that Om Prakash and his companions were the employees of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, and as such the case would not fall under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code, but it would fall within the ambit of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.;