“We may now refer to certain general considerations also leading to the view which we have taken. First, we find that the heading which governs Sections 39 to 50 of the Act is “Criminal Offences and Procedure”. Obviously, therefore, the legislature thought that Section 39 created an offence. We have also said that Sections 48 and 49 indicate that in the legislature's contemplation Section 39 provided for a punishment. That section must, therefore, also have been intended to create an offence to which the punishment was to attach. The word 'offence' is not defined in the Act. Since for the reasons, earlier mentioned, in the legislature's view Section 39 created an offence, it has to be held that that was one of the offence to which Section 50 was intended to apply. Lastly, it seems to us that the object of Section 50 is to prevent prosecution for offences against the Act being prosecuted by anyone who chooses to do so because the offences can be proved by men possessing special qualifications. That is why it is left only to the authorities concerned with the offence and the persons aggrieved by it to initiate the prosecution. There is no dispute that Section 50 would apply to the offences mentioned in Sections 40 to 47. Now it seems to us that if we are right in our view about the object of Section 50, in principle it would be impossible to make any distinction between Section 39 and any of the Sections from Section 40 to Section 47. Thus, Section 40 makes it an offence to maliciously cause energy to be wasted. If in respect of waste of energy Section 50 is to have application, there is no reason why it should not have been intended to apply to dishonest abstraction of energy made a theft by Section 39, for all these reasons we think
