Judgment Partha Sakha Datta, J. By this application dated 03-01-2007 quashing has been prayed for of a proceeding being Sonamukhi P.S. Case No. 37 of 2002 dated 12-07-2002 (G.R. No. 151 of 2002) corresponding to special (EL.) 56 of 2005 pending before the learned Judge, Special Court under the E.C. Act at Bankura. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 26-07-2005 passed by learned ACJM, Bishnupur, Bankura. FIR was lodged on 12-07-2002 under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910, as amended by one Mrityunjoy Sarkar, an officer of the West Bengal State Electricity Board against the present petitioner alleging tampering of electricity meter and pilferage of electricity energy causing revenue loss of Rs.10,000/-. Charge sheet no. 38 of 2002 dated 31-07-2002 was laid against the accused before the learned Magistrate under Section 39 of the Act. The petitioner was released on bail and upon submission of charge sheet the learned ACJM by the order dated 26-07-2005 transferred the case to the learned Special Judge, Bankura for trial. The learned Special Judge, Bankura on receipt of the record from the learned Magistrate fixed a date for appearance of the accused before him. The prosecution is sought to be quashed on the grounds that the learned Special Judge under the Electricity (West Bengal Amendment) Act 2001 has no jurisdiction to try the offence because the alleged offence was committed on 12-07-2002 while the State Amendment Act came into force on 15-07-2002 and thus it is the provision of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 as stood amended by the Amending Act 31 of 1986 is applicable in the instant case. Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 as amended by the Amending Act 31 of 1986 clearly provides that no prosecution shall be against any person except at the instance of the Government or a State Electricity Board or an electrical inspector or of a person aggrieved by the same. The third ground is that charge sheet does not reveal any prima facie case. Fourthly there is not laboratory analysis to show that the meter was tampered with and no report of testing of the electricity meter was produced before the learned Magistrate along with the charge sheet. Mr. The third ground is that charge sheet does not reveal any prima facie case. Fourthly there is not laboratory analysis to show that the meter was tampered with and no report of testing of the electricity meter was produced before the learned Magistrate along with the charge sheet. Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee submitted that Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 as amended in 1986 provided that dishonest abstraction or consumption or use of energy is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than Rs.1000/- or with both while Section 39 as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act of 30 of 2001 which came into effect from 15-07-2002 provides for punishment in the form of imprisonment which shall not be less than three months but extend to five years with fine which shall not be less than Rs.5000/- but may extend to Rs.50,000/-. Two fold submissions are made i.e. as the offence was committed on 12-07-2002 the petitioner is liable to be visited with penalty as was provided in Section 39 of the Act as it stood before amendment of 2001 and secondly prior to amendment that came to be effective from 15-07-2002 offence was not triable by any Special Court. Thus the Special Judge has got no jurisdiction to try the offence and secondly in the event of proof of guilt he cannot be visited with penalty as has been enhanced and provided for in the Amending Act 30 of 2001. Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, learned advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal and Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the State Electricity Board joined the issue submitting that in the matter of trial of a case the procedure laid down in the Amending Act 30 of 2001 has to be followed because the amending Act came into effect from the day when the instant case was pending for investigation and accordingly investigation has to be carried out and prosecution report has to be submitted in compliance with the provisions of the West Bengal Act 30 of 2001. My attention has been drawn to a decision of this court in Anil Kumar Bhuinya vs. State of West Bengal, 2006(1) CHN 672 where this point was specifically dealt with. My attention has been drawn to a decision of this court in Anil Kumar Bhuinya vs. State of West Bengal, 2006(1) CHN 672 where this point was specifically dealt with. By the West Bengal Act 30 of 2001 a provision i.e. 39G was introduced where in sub-section (2) it has been laid down that all cases involving offences punishable under any provision of this Act and pending before any court shall on constitution of a Special Court having jurisdiction over such cases stand transferred to such Special Court. A reasonable interpretation of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 39G entails that cases pending before any court on the day of commencement of the amending Act shall be triable by a Special Court having jurisdiction over such cases and no other interpretation than the one as said above is possible. In Section 39F constitution of Special Court has been provided and pursuant to the said Section Special court has been constituted and a Special Judge has been appointed at Bankura where the case was transferred to by the learned ACJM of Bankura. After the West Bengal Act 30 of 2001 was enacted the Electricity Act underwent a change by enactment of Electricity Act 2003 and it cannot be argued that after the enactment of the Electricity Act 2003 the Indian Electricity (West Bengal Amendment) Act 2001 lost its force because by a notification being no. 685-J/X dated 17-11-2003 the West Bengal Government made it clear that all the Judges of the Special Courts who are empowered to try the offences under the Indian Electricity (West Bengal Amendment) Act 2001 are also empowered to try cases in terms of Section 153 of the Electricity Act 2003. We are, however, not concerned with the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, in the matter of procedure it is the Special Judge under the Electricity Act who has jurisdiction to try the case. The question is whether in the case of proof of guilt the petitioner shall be visited with the penalty as provided for in Section 39 as amended by the West Bengal Act 30 of 2001. Therefore, in the matter of procedure it is the Special Judge under the Electricity Act who has jurisdiction to try the case. The question is whether in the case of proof of guilt the petitioner shall be visited with the penalty as provided for in Section 39 as amended by the West Bengal Act 30 of 2001. Noticeably on the date when the offence was allegedly committed the offence was punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than Rs.1000/- or with both, while in the amended Section 39(2) offence has been made punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than three months but may extend to five years and/or with fine which shall not be less than Rs.5000/- but may extend to Rs.50,000/-. It is the cardinal principle of construction of interpretation of statute that penal provision has to be construed strictly. The trial of the accused by the Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Act 30 of 2001 does not lead to any corollary conclusion that in case of proof of guilt the accused has to be visited with penalty in terms of Section 39 as amended in 2001 which came to be in force from 15-07-2002. Section 6 of the General Causes Act has to be invoked in this connection which clearly provides that the repeal shall not affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed or affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment and any penalty may be imposed as if the repealing act had not been passed. Therefore, the proceeding which was instituted first before the learned ACJM, Bishnupur under the Act 1910 may be carried on in view of the provisions of Act 30 of 2001 with the aid of Section 6 of the General Causes Act. The submission of Mr. Banerjee that learned Judge, Special Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence cannot, therefore, be sustained. The submission of Mr. The submission of Mr. Banerjee that learned Judge, Special Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence cannot, therefore, be sustained. The submission of Mr. Banerjee that in Section 50 of the 1910 Act it has been clearly provided that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person for any offence against this Act or any rule, licence, or order thereunder except at the instance of the Government or a State Electricity Board or an electrical inspector or of a person aggrieved by the same but in the instant case this provision has been violated. I do not find the submission to be of any merit because the FIR was lodged by a senior Station Superintendent of the State Electricity Board who cannot be said to be not authorised or not empowered to lodge the FIR. The defacto complainant is an officer belonging to State Electricity Board. The words ‘at the instance of the Government or a State Electricity Board or an electrical inspector, or of a person aggrieved by the same’ are sufficient enough to include and comprise a station superintendent belonging to West Bengal State Electricity Board. Section 50 does nowhere say that no FIR can be lodged or that the court cannot take cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint made in writing by the specified categories of officers as we find in Section 151 of the Electricity Act 2003. The third submission that the meter was not tested or that no independent witnesses were cited in the charge sheet are matters of fact that can be agitated at the trial. Again, the submission that there was no evidence of dishonest abstraction of electrical energy is verily a question of fact which this court upon an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to critically examine because of the fact that pursuant to a comprehensive FIR investigation was carried out and charge sheet was submitted and the learned Judge on the basis of the charge sheet took cognizance of the offence. Mr. Banerjee at the last leg of is argument referred to a decision in Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 666 . Having read the decision I do not find the same to be of any relevance to the present revisional application. Mr. Banerjee at the last leg of is argument referred to a decision in Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 666 . Having read the decision I do not find the same to be of any relevance to the present revisional application. Here their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the theft of electricity is an offence against the Electricity Act of 1910 and Section 379 of the IPC does not have any manner of application. Herein in the instant case charge sheet was laid under Section 39 of the Electricity Act, not under Section 379 of the IPC. Moreover, there is an observation in the decision that it was an offence created by Section 39 of the Act, and Section 50 of the Act was intended to apply of an offence prescribing Section 39. As said above FIR was lodged by the appropriate officer in terms of Section 50 of the Act pursuant to which charge sheet was submitted. Section 50 does nowhere say that no cognizance can be taken of the offence under Section 39 of the Act except upon a complaint made in writing by any specific officer. It speaks of institution of prosecution under Section 39 of the Act. In the circumstances, the revisional application fails and is dismissed.