JUDGMENT By the Court.—This is a bunch of connected criminal writ petitions. We are treating Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15622 of 2006, Udaiveer v. State of U.P. and others, and Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15687 of 2006, Ram Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, as the leading writ petitions. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.K. Sand, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and Sri R.K. Mishra and Sri H.P. Dubey, learned Counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation. 3. An affidavit dated 21.7.2007 has been filed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15687 of 2006 by Dy. S.P. (Legal Cell), DGP Headquarters, Lucknow, on behalf of the DGP Headquarters. 4. The writ petitions were filed challenging the registration of criminal cases against the petitioners, inter alia, under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, on the basis of FIRs essentially alleging theft of electricity. The petitions have arisen because in a judgment and order, the leading case in the connected bunch of cases being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 10090 of 2005, Mustaq @ Mustafa v. State of U.P. and others, (2006 (6) ALJ 257 : 2006(7) ADJ 98 (DB)) delivered on 15.9.2006, a Division Bench of Hon. Amitava Lala and Hon. Shiv Shanker, JJ., had held that the offence of theft of electricity could not be treated as a cognizable offence, hence the police had no power to investigate the offences without orders from a Magistrate. The D.B. had observed that with the aid of Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, offences under the Electricity Act could not be treated as cognizable offences because Section 151 of the Electricity Act placed an inhibition on the Court taking cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act except upon a complaint made by the appropriate Government, appropriate commission or any of their officers authorised by them or the Chief Electrical Inspector, and what could not be done under the Act, that is if the offence was non-cognizable under the principal Act it could not be made cognizable under the Rules. However the Court had permitted the police officer or appropriate authority under the Electricity Act to move applications before the magistrates concerned within a month of the order dated 15.9.2006 under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. for investigating criminal cases against the accused. 5. However the Court had permitted the police officer or appropriate authority under the Electricity Act to move applications before the magistrates concerned within a month of the order dated 15.9.2006 under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. for investigating criminal cases against the accused. 5. As no action had been taken on the said direction for 5 months, on 21.2.2007 the present Division Bench had directed that applications be moved before the Courts concerned for investigations and arrests of the accused under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. within 3 weeks and sought compliance reports in the matter. 6. Sri A.K. Sand, learned AGA, submits that as per the affidavit filed on behalf of the D.G.P. upto February 2007, in 257 cases 257 applications had been moved in different districts/regions under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C and permission to investigate the offences were granted in all the said matters by the concerned Courts. Thereafter in 193 cases charge-sheets were submitted, in 64 cases final reports were submitted and 7 cases were compounded. 7. In March 2007, 41 applications under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. were moved. In 33 cases permission were granted to investigate the matters by the Courts concerned. In 6 cases the said applications were still pending. In 2 cases the matters had been compounded. In 23 cases charge-sheets had been submitted. In 10 cases final reports were submitted and in 6 cases investigations were pending. 8. The position in April 2007 was that 22 applications under Section 155(2) were moved in 24 cases. In 13 cases permission for investigations had been granted. In 8 cases matters were under consideration by the Magistrates. Two cases have been compounded. In 9 cases charge-sheets had been submitted, in 3 cases final reports had been filed and in 10 cases investigations were pending. 9. In May 2007, 79 applications were made in 81 cases. In 45 cases permission for investigations had been granted by the Courts concerned, in 34 cases applications were still pending. Two matters had been compounded. Charge-sheets had been submitted in 22 cases and in 14 cases final reports had been filed and 43 cases were still under investigation. This is commendable progress in consequence of this Courts intervention, and we direct that the matters where charge sheets have been submitted should be expeditiously tried by the concerned Courts. 10. Two matters had been compounded. Charge-sheets had been submitted in 22 cases and in 14 cases final reports had been filed and 43 cases were still under investigation. This is commendable progress in consequence of this Courts intervention, and we direct that the matters where charge sheets have been submitted should be expeditiously tried by the concerned Courts. 10. However, it is pointed out by the learned AGA and learned Counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation that any restraint in investigation by the police or requirement to move applications before the Magistrates under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C for investigation has now been removed because the Parliament has amended the Electricity Act, and the new Sections 151 A and 151 B (introduced by Amending Act No. 26 of 2007, published in the Gazette of India on 29.5.2007) are especially relevant in this context. The said sections read as follows : "151-A. For the purposes of investigation of an offence punishable under this Act, the police officer shall have all the powers as provided in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 151-B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence punishable under Sections 135 to 140 or Section 150 shall be cognizable and non-bailable." 11. It is contended that as a consequence of the said amendments, the fetter on the police investigating the case in view of the decision in Mustaqs case (supra) that the offences under the Electricity Act were non-cognizable, have been removed. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, sought to contend that the Amending Act of 2007 (No. 26 of 2007) has only come into force on 15.6.2007 in pursuance of the Gazette notification dated 12.6.2007. 13. We think that simply because the provisions of the amending Act has come into force on 15.6.2007, is no ground for holding that any investigation prior to that date was illegal. 14. The reasons for our view are firstly, that the investigations prior to 15.6.2007 had in fact been conducted by the police after obtaining permission from the concerned magistrates, as indicated above, by moving applications under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. 15. 14. The reasons for our view are firstly, that the investigations prior to 15.6.2007 had in fact been conducted by the police after obtaining permission from the concerned magistrates, as indicated above, by moving applications under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. 15. Secondly, even if, for the sake argument it is assumed (though not accepted as we shall presently show) that the investigation in a certain case is taken to be unauthorized because the case is treated as a non-cognizable case where investigation was prohibited without permission of the Magistrate in view of Section 155 (2), Cr.P.C., but if indeed the police officer investigates the said case and submits a report to the magistrate, the said report shall be treated as a complaint in view of explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said explanation reads as under: "Explanation.—A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant; 16. Therefore, there is no fetter on the Court taking cognizance. This position has been set out in State of Bihar v. Chandra Bhushan Singh and another, AIR 2001 SC 429 and State of Bihar and others v. Ganesh Chaudhary and others, (2001) 2 SCC 245 . 17. Also, proviso (a) to Section 200, Cr.P.C. mentions that if the complaint is made in writing the magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses if the complainant is a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. 18. Thirdly, it is well settled in a catena of decisions (vide New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra, AIR 1976 SC 237 ; Gurbachan v. Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 209 that amendments in procedural laws are retrospective in nature and only alterations in substantive laws operate prospectively. 19. Therefore, the police had jurisdiction to investigate the matter even prior to the date of amendments. Moreover, the judgement of the Division Bench in Mustaqs case, Crl. Misc. 19. Therefore, the police had jurisdiction to investigate the matter even prior to the date of amendments. Moreover, the judgement of the Division Bench in Mustaqs case, Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 10090 of 2005 (supra) has been stayed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) 6080 of 2007 by the following interim order dated 15.9.2006, which reads as under: "ORDER Counsel for the petitioner states that same point as is involved in this Special Leave Petition is also involved in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4903 of 2007. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the Special Leave Petition. Tag on with S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4903 of 2007. In the meantime, there shall be interim stay of operation of the order of the High Court." 20. There can be no doubt about the proposition that the orders of the Apex Court and its interpretation of law operate retrospectively. Hence in view of their stay of the judgment of the earlier D.B. by the Apex Court, Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005, which had already provided that police had power to taking cognizance of offences punishable under the Electricity Act on a complaint in writing made to the police by the appropriate Government or appropriate commission or any authorized officer of the licensing company, there was no restriction on investigation even in cases prior to the amendment of the Electricity Act, when the matters were being stayed because of the view taken in Mustaqs case. 21. Finally, as it has rightly been argued by Sri H.P. Dubey, learned Counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation, that after the introduction of Sections 15A and 151-B by the Amending Act No. 26 of 2007, the position is now crystal clear, that offences punishable under Sections 135 to 140 or Section 150 of the Electricity Act have been made cognizable and non-bailable. Therefore now without doubt there is absolutely no fetter on the police investigating the offences without orders of a Magistrate. Therefore now without doubt there is absolutely no fetter on the police investigating the offences without orders of a Magistrate. Also as the learned Counsel rightly contends that even if the petitioners arguments were accepted and the petitions were to be allowed, and the FIRs quashed because at that time the section had not been amended, what is there to stop the police from again registering an FIR and investigating the case, because now there is no manner of doubt that there is no inhibition on the powers of the police to investigate the case without orders of a Magistrate, and it would be illogical for the Court to set aside the earlier FIRs and to direct fresh registration of FIRs. We find considerable force in this submission. Hence logic, law and common sense all demand that the said amendments in the procedural law be given retrospective effect. 22. At this point, some of the learned Counsels for the petitioners sought to argue that they would like to challenge the lodging of the FIR on factual grounds also. We are not prepared to accept this contention. The interim orders had been granted in this case because of the decision in Mustaqs case which does not hold the field any more as indicated above. Moreover, such factual averments and defences of an accused cannot be considered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be open to the petitioners to raise their grievances during the trial if charge-sheets are submitted against them. It is for the police to take a decision whether they wish to arrest an accused in a particular case, and whether there are any mitigating circumstances such as unintended commission of an offence and absence of mens rea or preparedness of the accused to compound the offence to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. This Court is not in a position to decide in individual cases whether the power to arrest an accused should be exercised or not. 23. After addition of the proviso to Section 151 of the principal Act by the Amending Act No. 26 of 2007, which reads as follows: "Provided that the Court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:" 24. 23. After addition of the proviso to Section 151 of the principal Act by the Amending Act No. 26 of 2007, which reads as follows: "Provided that the Court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:" 24. Thus, there is no fetter also on the Court taking cognizance of the offence under the Act on a report of the police officer filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 25. Moreover, it is apparent that the spate of power thefts, has created a veritable crisis in the power sector, where bona fide paying consumers routinely face power cuts and denial of electricity because of widespread illegal connections and dishonest diversions of power, and it is time now for the Court to take notice of these widely prevailing malpractices. It is to check these malpractices that the Parliament has now come down with a heavy hand and introduced the amendments in the Electricity Act vide amending Act No. 26 of 2007, and the Court must support the effort for tightening the laws and bringing electricity offenders to book. 26. In this view of the matter, there is no force in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. The interim orders, if any, stand vacated. It is made clear that even in the already disposed of Mustaqs case and the connected writ petition this order shall apply and there are absolutely no fetters on the police investigating the matters, and they may investigate such cases and take appropriate steps action in accordance with law. We also direct that on submission of charge sheets the trial Courts will expeditiously try the offenders so that the message may go out loud and clear to society that power thefts will no more be tolerated. 27. Subject to the aforesaid directions the aforesaid writ petition and the connected writ petitions are dismissed. ————