Target Detective and Security Force Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

.....50 of the act -scope of section 50 of the act - held, the prosecution launched on the basis of the complaint lodged by the official of the electricity board, who was working in the vigilance squad and who detected theft of electrical energy, was in fact a prosecution launched at the instance of the state or electricity board. - the prosecution launched at the instance of any official of the electricity board who detected the theft of electrical energy was in reality a prosecution launched at the instance of the electric supply company within the meaning of section 50 of the act - further held, in the case on hand also, p.w.4 is an employee of the k.p.t.c.l. working as an assistant executive engineer in the vigilance squad. - the prosecution launched on the basis of the complaint lodged by p.w.4 was in reality a prosecution launched at the instance of the k.p.t.c.l. therefore, the prosecution launched in this case was at the instance of one of the persons named in section 50 of the act, as such, it was competent. - under these circumstances, the court below is not justified in holding that the prosecution was not competent, therefore, the acquittal recorded on that basis is illegal and is liable to be set aside. - on facts, held, the learned trial judge accepted the evidence of p.w.s 1 to 4 and the finding recorded is justified - there are no grounds to differ from the said finding. in fact, the respondent/accused has not questioned the correctness of the said finding. - since the amendment of section 39 was subsequent to the detection of the offence in this case and also subsequent to filing of the charge sheet, the amended section cannot be applied to the case on hand. under these circumstances, the respondent/accused is required to be sentenced in terms of the unlamented section 39 of the act. - sentence is modified in terms unlamented section 39 of the act - indian electricity act, 1910 - section 50 - the phrase "at the instance" referred in the provision -.....orderajit j. gunjal, j.1. petitioner is an establishment which started functioning in the year 1986 haying its organisation for providing employees in various services and officers and has been doing the said work which was entrusted to them. a tender was floated by the respondent on 17-11-2008 for providing service of personnel of data entry operators to the district project offices for the year 2009-2010 in respect of seven districts. the petitioner was also one of the participant in the tender. the last date for submitting the tender was 25-11-2008. the 4th respondent was also one of the participant. the tender authority has accepted the tender of respondent 4 and a contract is awarded in its favour. the said awarding of contract is questioned in this petition.2. apparently, petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under section 16 of the karnataka transparency in public procurements act, 1999 (for short, the act') and the same is not availed by the petitioner.3. on merits it is to be noticed that the tender was for a period of one year which would come to an end on 31-3-2010. apparently, the petitioner did not have the benefit of an interim order during the pendency of the proceedings. no useful purpose would be served at this stage by examining the matter any further by this court. hence the following: