Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 904 (MP)

Sheikh Mohd. Khalil v. State of M. P.

2005-08-23

AJIT SINGH

body2005
JUDGMENT This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 28.10.2004 passed in Special Case No. 1/2004 by the Special Judge, Balaghat, whereby the objection of the petitioner against taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been rejected. It is not disputed before me that the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") is a licensee within the meaning of section 2 (39) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Assistant Engineer of the Board is authorized to make a complaint under section 151 of the Act. On 6.2.2004 the petitioner was found committing theft of electricity worth Rs. 3,461/- by the Assistant Engineer of the Board. A written complaint dated 6.2.2004 was, therefore, made by the Assistant Engineer to the Station Officer of Police Station Gramin Navegaon, District Balaghat. The police, after investigation, submitted its report along with the complaint of Assistant Engineer before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balaghat, against the petitioner. On committal the case came before the Special Judge constituted under the Act. On 5.10.2004 charge under section 135 of the Act was framed against the petitioner. After the recording of evidence the trial is now closed for final arguments. The petitioner raised a plea before the Special Judge that he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance under the Act in the absence of any complaint contemplated under section 151 of the Act. The objection has been rejected by the impugned order. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon section 151 of the Act is that the proceedings initiated against him before the Special Judge pursuant to the charge sheet filed by the Station Officer are devoid of jurisdiction and hence the same be quashed. Section 151 of the Act reads as under: "151. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon section 151 of the Act is that the proceedings initiated against him before the Special Judge pursuant to the charge sheet filed by the Station Officer are devoid of jurisdiction and hence the same be quashed. Section 151 of the Act reads as under: "151. Cognizance of offences -- No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case maybe, for this purpose." Section 151 requires that there should be a complaint by appropriate Government or Commission or Officer or Licensee mentioned therein on which cognizance can be taken. The section does not say that the person making the complaint should directly make the same to the Court. When, on a complaint made by anyone who is competent to make a complaint under section 151 of the Act, the police takes cognizance and after investigation sends its report to the Court along with the complaint received by it on which the investigation started, the Court can take cognizance because the person making the complaint to the police is one enumerated under section 151 as competent to make a complaint. There is no illegality in the procedure, as section 151 of the Act does not require that the complaint should directly be made to the Court. The substance of the provision of section 151 of the Act is a complaint for taking cognizance made by one who is competent to make it under that section and not that it should be directly presented to the Court. This is also the scheme of Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 made by a notification dated 8.6.2005 which reads as follows: "12. Cognizance of the offence -- (1) The police shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act on a complaint in writing made to the police by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them in this regard or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or an authorized officer or Licensee on a Generating Company, as the case may be. (2) The police shall investigate the complaint in accordance with the general law applicable to the investigation of a complaint. For the purposes of investigation of the complaint the police shall have all the powers as available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (3) The police shall, after investigation. forward the report along with the complaint filed under sub-clause (1) to the Court for trial under the Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clauses (1), (2) and (3) above, the complaint for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act may also be filed by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or an authorized officer of Licensee or a Generating Company, as the case may be directly in the appropriate Court. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, every special Court may take cognizance of an offence referred to in sections 135 to 139 of the Act without the accused being committed to it for trial. (6) The cognizance of the offence under the Act shall not in any way prejudice the actions under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code." (emphasis supplied) Section 151 of the Act is a procedural provision and must be liberally interpreted. If a complaint is directly made to the Court, the Court would normally send it for investigation to the police and call for the report. To cut short that procedure, Rule 12 enables that the complaint can b~ made to the police and the police will send the complaint along with its report to the Court for taking cognizance. Even though the said rule came later, the same procedure was adopted in this case and such a procedure does not go against section 151 of the Act. Admittedly, the complaint was also made by a person enumerated under section 151 of the Act as competent to make it. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The record of the trial Court be send immediately for further proceedings.