ORDER :- These revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the subject-matter of the dispute involved in these petition is identical and common questions of law are involved for adjudication of these petitions. 2. In Criminal Revision No. 49/07 the report was lodged by Chhattisgarh Electricity Board (for brevity 'the Board') against the non-applicant No. 2 on 31-3-2006 regarding theft of electricity on 23-2-2006 and accordingly, Crime No. 227/06 for the offence punishable under Ss. 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short 'the Act of 2003) was registered and charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Bilaspur. The Special Judge by the impugned order dated 26th September, 2006 passed in E. Cr. Case No. 4/06 allowed the application of the non-applicants for the present and discharged the non-applicants with liberty to the Board that it can take proper action in accordance with law. 3. In Criminal Revision No. 573/06 on the report of Junior Engineer, C.S.E.B., offence was registered against the non-applicant No. 1-Rajendra Prasad Agrawal for commission of electricity theft on 28-4-2006 in Police Station Champa. Non-applicant No. 1 moved an application under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. After hearing counsel for the respective parties learned A.S.J. observed vide impugned order dated 6-6-2006 passed in B.A. No. 998/06 that for the offence under S. 135 of the Act of 2003 cognizance of the offence can be taken by any Court only on the complaint under S. 151of the Act and any other procedure would be illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, action taken by the police cannot be termed to be in accordance with law and the same is vitiated. Accordingly, the Station House Officer, Champa was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In view of the above observations of the Court, the counsel appearing for non-applicant No. 1 did not press his application and the same was accordingly, rejected. 4. In Criminal Revision No. 349/07, preferred by Vijay Krishna Dixit, on the basis of complaint of the Board Crime No. 226/ 06 was registered on 31st March, 2006 in Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur for the alleged electricity theft committed by the applicant on 24th February, 2006. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Ss. 135, 126 and 150 of the Act of 2003. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Ss. 135, 126 and 150 of the Act of 2003. Learned Special Judge vide impugned order dated 22-5-2007 passed in Cr. Case No. 32/06 rejected the objection of the applicant and held that on the complaint of a competent authority of the Board the police rightly took cognizance of the offence and filed charge-sheet. 5. In Criminal Revision No. 453/07, filed by Dr. Sita Ram Agrawal, on the report dated 1st April, 2006 of the Board for theft of electricity on 1-3-2006 offence under Ss. 135 and 126 of the Act of 2003 was registered in Police Station Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur against the applicant. The Special Judge vide impugned order dated 23-7-2007 passed in Case No. 30/06 rejected the application for discharge of the applicant and held that the competent authority under the Electricity Rules has lodged the written report with the police and after due inspection charge-sheet has been filed and the same is not in violation of S. 151 of the Act of 2003. 6. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 49/07 argued that there is no provision in the Act of 2003 to take cognizance of an offence under the Act of 2003 and the Special Judge could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Ss. 126 and 135 of the Act on a police report in view of S. 151 of the Act of 2003. The Electricity (Amendment) Act of 2007 came into force w.e.f. 15th June, 2007 whereby a provision has been made that cognizance of the offence under Act can be taken on the report of police officer filed under S. 173 of the Cr. P.C. when the accused being committed to it for trial. The above provision was not in force on 30th June, 2006 as it came into force w.e.f. 15th June, 2007 and, therefore, cognizance taken by the Special Court on a police report on 30th June, 2006 was without jurisdiction. It was argued that S. 151 of the Act of 2003 is mandatory and the Special Court could take cognizance only on the basis of complaint filed by the officers mentioned in the above section prior to 15th June, 2007. 7. It was argued that S. 151 of the Act of 2003 is mandatory and the Special Court could take cognizance only on the basis of complaint filed by the officers mentioned in the above section prior to 15th June, 2007. 7. Reliance is placed on decisions in the matters of Gopalakrishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy (1983) 4 SCC 240 : (AIR 1983 SC 1053); Biswanath Patra v. Divisional Engineer (E) S and LP, AIR 2007 Cal 189 and M/s. Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2007 Cri LJ 429. 8. It was further argued that R. 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 permitting cognizance of the offence under the Act of 2003 by the police and investigation by the police, is inconsistent with the unamended S. 151 of the Act of 2003. It is settled law that if the rules/regulations framed under the Act are directly opposed to and inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, then such rules are void and unenforceable and the same is to be ignored even if it has not been struck down. 9. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the matters of Bharathidarsan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, (AIR 2001 SC 2861); Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nasik (1984) 2 SCC 50 : (AIR 1984 SC 192); Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 516 : (AIR 1997 SC 2502) and the Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen etc., (AIR 1960 SC 12). 10. Lastly, it was argued that the order taking cognizance of an offence is purely a judicial function subject to judicial review by the Court of appeal or revision, to which the Magistrate is subject. Unless the power to take cognizance is conferred by Act, cognizance cannot be taken. 11. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the matters of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lakshmi Brahman (1983) 2 SCC 372 : (AIR 1983 SC 439); and Mowu v. Superintendent, Special Jail, Nowgong, Assam (1971) 3 SCC 936. 12. Mr. V. C. Ottalwar and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in Cr. Rev. No. 349/07 have also advanced identical arguments. 13. Mr. C. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant in Cr. Rev. No. 453/07 and Mr. Y. C. Sharma, learned counsel for non-applicant No. 1 in Cr. Rev. 12. Mr. V. C. Ottalwar and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in Cr. Rev. No. 349/07 have also advanced identical arguments. 13. Mr. C. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant in Cr. Rev. No. 453/07 and Mr. Y. C. Sharma, learned counsel for non-applicant No. 1 in Cr. Rev. No. 573/06 have also adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal and Mr. V. C. Ottalwar and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava. 14. On the other hand, Mr. A. S. Gaharwar, learned counsel representing the Board in all these criminal revisions submitted that the Board vide circular dated 18th June, 2004 authorised all the officers mentioned in the above circular, for the purpose of prosecution under S. 151 of the Act of 2003 against the persons committing any offence under the Act of 2003, to act and prosecute a legal proceedings including lodging F.I.R. for and on behalf of the Board within the jurisdiction of their respective areas. The Central Govt. in exercise of powers conferred under S. 176 of the Act of 2003 has framed Electricity Rules, 2005 and according to Rule 12(1) of the said Rules police can take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act on a complaint in writing made to the police by the authorities mentioned in the rules and the police shall have all the powers of Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of investigation of the complaint including forwarding the report for trial under the Act and the police have also been conferred all the powers available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-rule (5) of R. 12 envisages that Special Court may take cognizance of an offence under Ss. 135 to 139 of the Act without the accused being committed to it for trial. The State of Chhattisgarh has also framed Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rules, 2006, which has come into force w.e.f. 31st March, 2006 and as per Rule 9 of the said Rules, the Assistant Electrical Inspectors, an officer not below the rank of Junior Engineer of the Board or distribution licensee, have been declared authorised officers under S. 151 of the Act. 15. It was further argued that it is not the requirement of S. 151 of the principal Act that complaint is to be made by the persons enumerated in the above section in the concerned Court directly. 15. It was further argued that it is not the requirement of S. 151 of the principal Act that complaint is to be made by the persons enumerated in the above section in the concerned Court directly. The substance of the provision of S. 151 is that it should be made by one who is competent to make under that section. Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 also envisages that the complaint can be filed to the police by a competent person competent under S.151 of the Act. 16. Reliance is placed on the orders passed in the matters of Sheikh Mohd. Khalil v. State of M.P., 2005 (4) MPLJ 479 and Chabi Rani Ghosh v. CESC Ltd., (AIR 2006 NOC 171). 17. It is further argued that in the meanwhile Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 came into force w.e.f. June 15, 2007 and in S. 151 of the principal Act proviso has been inserted which provides that the Court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Special Court shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. Section 151-A provides that the police officer shall have all the powers as provided in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Referring to "Principle of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh, Ninth Edition" it was submitted that the statutes dealing with procedure applies to all actions pending as well as future and a change in law operates retrospectively and unlike the law relating to vested rights, after the statute is amended, it is to be read and construed with reference to the new provisions and not with reference to the provisions that already existed. 18. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 5100. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 20. On the basis of submissions of the respective parties the following legal issues are involved for adjudication of these petitions :- (i) Whether in view of S. 151 of the principal Act, the Special Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence on a police report? 19. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 20. On the basis of submissions of the respective parties the following legal issues are involved for adjudication of these petitions :- (i) Whether in view of S. 151 of the principal Act, the Special Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence on a police report? (ii) Whether sub-rules (1), (2), (3) of Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 permitting police to take cognizance of the offence, investigate the complaint and forward the report along with complaint to the Court for trial, is inconsistent with S. 151 of the principal Act of 2003? (iii) Whether the provisions of Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007, which came into force w.e.f. 15th June, 2007 would apply retrospectively to all pending cases? 21. Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before amendment 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 Commissioner or any of their officer authorised by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or Licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose." In exercise of powers conferred by S. 176 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the Central Government framed Electricity Rules, 2005. Rule 12 reads thus :- "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 officers authorised by them in this regard or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or an authorised officer of licensee or 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 any 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. 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 officers authorised by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or an authorised 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 Ss. 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." The principal Electricity Act, 2003 was further amended by the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 and apart from other amendments S. 151 of the principal Act was also amended and provisos in Ss. 151, 151-A, and 151-B were inserted. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons for amending the Act, it was stated was under; "4. As per the provisions contained in S. 151 of the Act, the offences relating to theft of electricity, electric lines and interference with meters are cognizable offences. Concerns have been expressed that the present formulation of S. 151 stands as a barrier to investigation of these cognizable offences by the police. It is proposed to amend S. 151 so as to clarify the position that the police would be able to investigate the cognizable offences under the Act. To expedite the trial before the Special Courts, it is also proposed to provide that a special Court shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. 1. Short title and commencement.- (1) This Act may be called the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint." "15. 1. Short title and commencement.- (1) This Act may be called the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint." "15. Amendment of Section 151.- In Section 151 of the principal Act, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely :- "Provided that the Court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) : Provided further that a special Court constituted under S. 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial." 16. Insertions of new Sections 151-A and 151-B.- After S. 151 of the principal Act, the following sections shall be inserted namely :- "151-A. Power of police to investigate.- 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 (2 of 1974). "151-B. Certain offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence punishable under Ss. 135 to 140 or S. 150 shall be cognizable and non-bailable." 22. In Gopalakrishna Menon (AIR 1983 SC 1053) forged document in the form of money receipt was produced by the appellants in a civil proceedings. The respondent filed a complaint against the appellants alleging forgery of his signature on the money receipt. The appellants objected to maintainability of the criminal action on the ground that the Court could not take cognizance of an offence, which is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced in evidence in the proceedings in Court except on complaint in writing of that Court and in these circumstances, it was held that the prosecution on the basis of a private complaint and in the absence of a complaint from the competent Civil Court where the alleged fraudulent receipt has been produced, would not be sustainable. 23. 23. In Biswanath Patra (AIR 2007 Cal 189) the Calcutta High Court dealing with cognizance of the offence under S. 151 of the principal Act of 2003 held that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by police officer under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly, petition of the accused was allowed and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate was quashed. 24. Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of M/s. Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. (2007 Cri LJ 429) also took a similar view and held that where the offence relates to theft of electricity under Ss. 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, the general law contained in S. 379 of I.P.C. will not be applicable. Any attempt by police to add offence under S. 379, I.P.C. will be a crude device by the prosecution to overcome the likely objection from the accused about the filing of the complaint instead of registration of F.I.R. Once there is specific provision in the Act in respect of providing of punishment for theft of electricity, no offence under S. 379, I.P.C. could be alleged by the prosecution. 25. However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Sheikh Mohd. Khalil took a view that the provision of taking cognizance of offence under S. 151 is a procedural provision and the same must be liberally interpreted. Referring to Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 in paragraph 7 of the order it was held thus :- "7. 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, R. 12 enables that the complaint can be 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 S. 151 of the Act. Admittedly, the complaint was also made by a person enumerated under S. 151 of the Act as competent to make it." 26. Even though the said rule came later, the same procedure was adopted in this case and such a procedure does not go against S. 151 of the Act. Admittedly, the complaint was also made by a person enumerated under S. 151 of the Act as competent to make it." 26. In Chabi Rani Ghosh (AIR 2006 (NOC) 171) learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court also took a view that the offence committed under S. 135 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment for three years, therefore, it has to be regarded as cognizable offence and police can, therefore, on receipt of the information about commission of such offence registered F.I.R. 27. In Gopalakrishna Menon (AIR 1983 SC 1053) it has been held that where the allegations pertain to offence relating to filing of forged document in a Court proceedings, the Court cannot take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of that Court in view of S. 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 28. In Biswanath Patra (AIR 2007 Cal 189) the Calcutta High Court has held that the Court cannot take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Electricity Act, 2003 except upon a complaint made in writing by a person or an authority as provided for in the said section itself and, therefore, cognizance of an offence cannot be taken under the Act of 2003 on the basis of a charge-sheet submitted by a police officer. 29. Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken an identical view in the case of M/s. Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. (2007 Cri LJ 429). Reliance is placed on Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 666 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Ss. 39 and 50 of the Electricity Act, 1910 held that the prosecution in respect of S. 39 would be incompetent unless it is instituted at the instance of a person named in S. 50 of the 1910 Act. 30. Whereas the High Court of Calcutta in Chabi Rani Ghosh (AIR 2006 (NOC) 171) case held that the offence under S. 135 is a cognizable offence and is punishable with imprisonment for three years and, therefore, police can on receipt of information about commission of such offence register F.I.R. 31. However, in the aforesaid judgments/ orders the effect of R. 12 of Electricity Rules, 2005, has not been considered. 32. However, in the aforesaid judgments/ orders the effect of R. 12 of Electricity Rules, 2005, has not been considered. 32. On the other hand, in Sheikh Mohd. Khalil interpreting S. 151 of the High Court of M.P. held that the substance of provision of S. 151 of the Act is that 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. It has been further held that the scheme of R. 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 enables that the complaint can be made to the police and the police shall forward the complaint along with its report to the Court for taking cognizance. 33. The legality and correctness of the above view has been questioned by learned counsel appearing for the accused persons and it has been argued that it is settled principle of law that the rules and regulations framed in exercise of powers under the statute may have the force of law, however, the same cannot confer any more power than the statute itself. The delegate authorised to make subsidiary rules cannot legislate on the field covered by the Act, in the garb of making rules. 34. In Bharathidarsan University (AIR 2001 SC 2861) the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with All India Council for Technical Education Act (52 of 1987) and regulations framed in exercise of powers under S. 23 of the Act, held that the regulations may have the force of law but they do not confer any more sanctity or immunity as though they are statutory provisions themselves. Consequently, when the power to make regulations are confined to certain limits and made to flow in a well defined canal within stipulated banks, those actually made or shown and found to be not made within its confines but outside them, the Courts are bound to ignore them when the question of their enforcement arise and the mere act that there was no specific relief sought for to strike down or declare them ultra vires, particularly when the party in sufferance is a respondent to the lis or proceedings cannot confer any further sanctity or authority and validity which it is shown and found to obviously and patently lack. 35. 35. In Babaji Kondaji Garad (AIR 1984 SC 192) also it has been held that if there is conflict between the statute and the subordinate legislation, the statute prevails over subordinate legislation and the bye-laws, if not in conformity with the statutes, in order to give effect to the statutory provision the rule or bye-law has to be ignored. Similar proposition of law has been laid down in Agricultural Market Committee (AIR 1997 SC 2502) and the Central Bank of India (AIR 1960 SC 12) where it has been held that the delegate which has been authorised to make subsidiary rules cannot, in the garb of making rules, legislate on the field covered by the Act and has to restrict itself to the mode of implementation of the policy and purpose of the Act. 36. Plain reading of S. 151 of the Act reveals that cognizance of the offence is to be taken by the Court upon a complaint in writing made by the appropriate Government or any of their officers authorised by them, apart from other authorities mentioned in this section. The Central Government exercising powers conferred by S. 176 of the Electricity Act, 2003 framed Electricity Rules, 2005. Rule 12(1) envisages that the police shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act on a complaint in writing made to the police by any of the officers mentioned in S. 151 of the Act. Sub-rule (2) envisages that on such complaint being made, the police shall investigate the complaint in accordance with general law and after completing investigation forward the report along with the complaint to the Court for trial under the Act. Sub-rule (5) of R. 12 provides that the special Court may take cognizance of an offence under Ss. 135 to 139 of the Act without the accused being committed to it for trial. 37. Thus, from a plain reading of S. 151 it is clear that the Court can take cognizance on a written report filed by the appropriate Government or any of their officers authorised by them for that purpose and the Central Govt. in exercise of rule making powers conferred under S. 176 of the Act has authorised the police to forward the complaint received by the officers authorised in this regard under S. 151 after due investigation to the concerned Court along with its report. 38. in exercise of rule making powers conferred under S. 176 of the Act has authorised the police to forward the complaint received by the officers authorised in this regard under S. 151 after due investigation to the concerned Court along with its report. 38. It is settled law that the rule making authority has to act within the limits of power delegated to it under the statute. The statutory rules cannot enlarge the meaning of the section and the rules, which are inconsistent and in conflict with the section are void and unenforceable. However, I do not find any inconsistency and conflict in R. 12 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 and S. 151 of the Act. The offences under the Electricity Act are punishable with imprisonment of 3 years and as such, cognizable offences. Rule 12 only contemplates that categories of the officers authorised under S. 151 of the Act may lodge report with the police. The police after investigation may forward the report along with complaint to the concerned Court for trial under the Act. The requirement of S. 151 is that the complaint can be lodged only by the categories of the officers mentioned in the section. The stipulation that complaint may be forwarded by the police after due investigation, cannot be considered to be inconsistent or opposed to the provisions of S. 151 of the principal Act. 39. In any case, the Parliament in the statement of objects and reasons for enacting the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 has clearly stated that the offences relating to theft of electricity, electric lines and interference with meters are cognizable offences and considering the concerns expressed on account of present formulation of S. 151 that it stands as a barrier to investigation of these cognizable offences by the police, amendment to S. 151 was proposed to clarify the position that the police would be able to investigate the cognizable offence under the Act. To expedite the trial it was also proposed that the special Court shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. 40. To expedite the trial it was also proposed that the special Court shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. 40. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the accused persons that the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 came into force from 15th June, 2007 and taking cognizance of an offence by a Court is a judicial function; therefore, subsequent amendment in the Act would not have retrospective effect. 41. In Lakshmi Brahman (AIR 1983 SC 439) in paragraph 12 it has been held that taking cognizance of an offence under S. 190 is a purely judicial function subject to judicial review by the Court of appeal or revision to which the Magistrate is subject. Cognizance of an offence even if exclusively triable by the Court of Session has to be taken by the Magistrate because S.193 precludes it from taking cognizance of any offence. Similarly, in Mowu also it has been held that taking cognizance of an offence within the meaning of S. 190 is a judicial and not administrative act. 42. In Zile Singh (AIR 2004 SC 5100) in paragraphs 13 and 14 it has been held thus :- "13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. But the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless these are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only - "nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non-praeteritis" - a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P. Singh, 9th Edn., 2004 at p. 438). It is not necessary that an express provision be made to make a statute retrospective and the presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit of the community as a whole (ibid, p. 440). 14. It is not necessary that an express provision be made to make a statute retrospective and the presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit of the community as a whole (ibid, p. 440). 14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes.......In determining, therefore; the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is "to explain" an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospectivity. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended......An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect (ibid, pp. 468-69)." 43. The Constitution Bench in Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24 : (AIR 2001 SC 2472) in paragraph 39 : (para 40 of AIR) of its judgment has held as under :- "Ordinarily when an enactment declares the previous law, it requires to be given retroactive effect. The function of a declaratory statute is to supply an omission or to explain a previous statute and when such an Act is passed, it comes into effect when the previous enactment was passed. The legislative power to enact law includes the power to declare what was the previous law and when such a declaratory Act is passed, invariably it has been held to be retrospective. Mere absence of use of the word 'declaration' in an Act explaining what was the law before may not appear to be a declaratory Act but if the Court finds an Act as declaratory or explanatory, it has to be construed as retrospective." (p. 2487)." 44. From plain reading of S. 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 it is clear that the same has merely prescribed the procedure. From plain reading of S. 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 it is clear that the same has merely prescribed the procedure. This provision only prescribed the eligibility of the complainant and the conditions requisite for initiating of a proceeding under the said Act in a Court against an accused and thus, the same is a part of procedural law. By way of inserting the aforesaid proviso under the Amending Act of 2007 only the form or procedure has been altered, that too, by way of clarification. Since the amendment of S. 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 i.e., the principal Act, is purely procedural in nature, in absence of anything to the contrary, would apply retrospectively to all pending cases, in the sense that such amended provisions shall apply to all actions, even though such action may have began earlier and then not reached to its logical conclusion as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Zile Singh (AIR 2004 SC 5100) and Shyam Sunder (AIR 2001 SC 2472). 45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jagmohan Mehatabsingh Gujaral v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 AIR SCW 5905 in paragraph 24 has observed thus :- "Large scale theft of electricity is a very alarming problem faced by all the State Electricity Boards in our country, which is causing loss to the State revenue running into hundreds of crores every year. In our considered view, after proper adjudication of the cases of all those who are found to be guilty of the offence of committing theft of electricity, apart from the sentence of conviction, the Court should invariably impose heavy fine making theft of electricity a wholly non-profitable venture. The most effective step to curb this tendency perhaps could be to discontinue supply of electricity to those consumers temporarily or permanently who have been caught abstracting electricity in a clandestine manner on more than one occasion. The legislature may consider incorporating this suggestion as a form of punishment by amending S. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act of 1910." 46. In the instant matters, charge-sheets have already been submitted. The accused persons do not have any vested rights in procedure to be followed for investigation of the offence and no prejudice is likely to be caused because of investigation of the matter by the police and filing of charge-sheet before the special Court. 47. In the instant matters, charge-sheets have already been submitted. The accused persons do not have any vested rights in procedure to be followed for investigation of the offence and no prejudice is likely to be caused because of investigation of the matter by the police and filing of charge-sheet before the special Court. 47. In the result, Cr. Rev.No. 49/07 and Cr. Rev.No. 573/06 preferred by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board are allowed and the observations made in the impugned order dated 26th September, 2006 passed in Electricity Cr. Case No. 4/06 and order dated 6th June, 2006 passed in B.A. No. 998/06, are set aside. Cr. Rev. No. 349/07 preferred by Vijay Krishna Dixit against the impugned order dated 22-5-2007 passed in Cr. Case No. 32/06 and Cr. Rev. No. 453/07 preferred by Dr. Sita Ram Agrawal against the impugned order dated 23-7-2007 passed in Case No. 30/06, deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Order accordingly.