1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.66 OF 2008 * Manik s/o Bhimrao Patil, Age 61 years, Occupation agriculture R/o. Shivali, Taluka Ausa, District Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra 2) The Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Through the Deputy Executive Engineer, Flying Squad, M.S.E.D.C.L., Latur. ... Respondents. -------- Smt. S.G. Chincholkar, holding for Shri. V.C. Solshe, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. R.R. Mane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1. Shri. S.M. Godse, Advocate for respondent No.2. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL, J. DATE: 21st AUGUST 2009 2 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of compounding of the offence under the Indian Electricity Act 2003 by order dated 21-1-2008 the Special Judge (Electricity Act) Latur in Special Case no.34 of 2006 ought to have returned muddemal property i.e. electric wires, kitkat, starters, boards to the petitioner allegedly used in the commission of the theft of electricity. The Special Judge under the order had directed that this muddemal property be sold in public auction and the sale proceeds be credited to the Government after expiry of appeal period. 3) This Court had called report from the Special Court and the Special Judge by communication dated 6-10-2008 has informed the Registry of this Court that the muddemal property is not sold in auction. 4) Considering the object of the Special Act i.e. the Indian Electricity Act 2003 and the 3 fact that the petitioner had committed an offence the trial Court rightly passed order of auctioning the muddemal articles. Theft of electricity is a serious offence affecting the civil society and encroaching upon the right of the citizens to enjoy the flow of the electricity. Theft of electricity affects the overall structure of continuous supply of electricity to the citizens at large. 5) Considering the facts of the case I do not find any error in the order passed by the Special Judge. There is no merit in the revision application. The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. 6) The trial Court is directed to execute the order passed by the Special Court of auctioning the muddemal property at the earliest in public auction and report to this Court accordingly. (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crra.66.08