( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the Indian Electricity Act (A. P. Amendment Act, 2000) 1910, Kurnool in transco C. C. No. 27 of 2003, whereunderthe present appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year, apart from fine of rs. 5,000-00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The accused was also convicted for the offence under section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and is sentenced to under simple imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the inspectorof Police, Vigilance and APTS Police station, APCPDC Ltd. , Kurnool filed charge sheet againstthe accused under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, before the I Additional sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the indian Electricity Act (A. P. Amendment act, 2000) 1910, Kurnool, alleging that the accused is the beneficiary of electrical Service connection No. 94, which is standing in the name of his father, late Subbanna, which pertains to the flour mill and huller situated at utakonda village. On 21 -7-2001 at 14. 10 hours, the officials of Electricity Department, inspected the flour mill and huller of the petitioner and found him committing theft of electrical energy by inserting X-Ray film (two strips) into the meter, through the gap created between the meter coverand left hand side of the view glass and thus stopped the rneter, disc rotation and thus used the energy illegally for flour mill and motor purposes. The energy pilfered by the accused is estimated at Rs. 1,49,936. 00. ( 3 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the prosecution P. Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and Ex. P-1 to P-12 were marked. On behalf of the accused D. W-1 was examined. On the basis of the above evidence, the learned judgefound the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant now contended that the procedure adopted by the prosecution is irregular, as the charge sheet was directly filed before the special Court; there are no committal proceedings; as such the prosecution initiated against the appellant is vitiated and he is accordingly entitled for acquittal. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant now contended that the procedure adopted by the prosecution is irregular, as the charge sheet was directly filed before the special Court; there are no committal proceedings; as such the prosecution initiated against the appellant is vitiated and he is accordingly entitled for acquittal. ( 6 ) FACTUALLY there is no dispute that in this case the charge sheet was filed directly before the Special Court and there are no committal proceedings. ( 7 ) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of our High Court in Chinnappa Reddy Jogi reddy v. State Inspector of Police Crl. A. No. 29 of 2004 dt. 13-10-2006 in the above decision, this court while relying on the decisions in Gangula Ashok v. State of A. P. AIR 2000 SC 740 m. A. Kutappan v. S. Krishnan Nayar 2004 CRLJ 1770 a. Goverdhan Reddy v. Superintendent of Police, Adilabad 1997 (2) ALT (Crl.) 677 (DB) (AP) = 1997 (2)ALD (Crl.) 568. held that "unless the case is committed by the concerned Magistrate under section 193 Cr. P. C. , the Special Court cannot directly take cognizance of the case and proceed with it. But, in case, such a mandatory requirement is not followed, as the cognizance was directly taken, depriving the accused of their valuable right to plead discharge before framing of the charge, the trial is vitiated and the conviction and sentence awarded are liable to be set aside. " ( 8 ) IN the present appeal, the learned Public prosecutor could not bring to my notice any legal provision or authority which says that the procedure followed herein is valid and that the special Court can directly take cognizance of the case filed under the provisions of the Indian electricity Act, without there being any committal. ( 9 ) IN view of the principle laid down in the decisions cited supra, it has to be held that the procedure adopted in prosecuting the appellant, is illegal and accordingly vitiated, consequently the appeal is liable to be allowed. ( 10 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the accused/appellant. Consequently the appellant is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. ( 10 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the accused/appellant. Consequently the appellant is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded after appeal time. It is made clear that the acquittal of the accused/ appellant would not preclude the authorities from taking fresh steps against the accused in accordance with law. .