JUDGMENT The accused in Transco Calendar Case No. 20 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Tribunal for Transco Cases, Kurnool filed the appeal against the judgment dated 19-1-2004 by which he was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity (A.P. Amendment) Act, 2000. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, APCPDC Limited, Kurnool filed charge sheet in Crime No. 372 of 2001 accusing the accused to have resorted to the theft of energy by bypassing the meter for his Slab Polishing Industry. It was alleged that on 10-3-2001, the Assistant Divisional Engineers of APCPDCL inspected the said industry at Ramapuram and found the theft committed by connecting three PVC blue colour 7/16 copper wires of about 29 metres length each directly from the nearby transformer section fuse carriers and by keeping the main switch in off position. The pilfered energy was estimated to be of a value of Rs. 10,73,241/- on the report of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, who prepared Inspection Report and seized the property. The crimes was registered and the accused was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody. He was later released on bail and hence the charge. 3. The Special Tribunal for Transco Cases directly took cognizance of the offences and after the appearance of the accused, he was examined under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code when he denied the offence. After examining P.Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-8 and M.O. 1 during trial, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. He had no defence evidence. 4. The Special Tribunal rendered the impugned judgment firstly believing the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 about the inspection and seizure of M.O. 1 .and consequently, concluding thatthe pilferage and theft of energy dishonestly by the accused were proved. "The Special Tribunal also concluded that the accused interfered with the meter and the works of APCPDCL for improper use of energy. 1 to 3 about the inspection and seizure of M.O. 1 .and consequently, concluding thatthe pilferage and theft of energy dishonestly by the accused were proved. "The Special Tribunal also concluded that the accused interfered with the meter and the works of APCPDCL for improper use of energy. Consequently, if found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity (A.P. Amendment) Act 2000 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and six months respectively under two counts while a fine was imposed on the first count and the Tribunal also awarded a compensation of Rs. 3, 28291/- to the Corporation which was equivalent to 12 months assessed quantity of energy. 5. The accused challenged the said judgment of conviction and sentence in this appeal contending that the inspection report was prepared in violation of Section 100 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure and the interested evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 without any independent corroboration should not have been accepted. When P.W. 3 stated that he was asked to sign on Ex. P-1 at the police station, it was clear that the case was foisted for statistical purposes and hence the accused desired the impugned judgment to be reversed. 6. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2005 dated 13-4-2007. 7. In the said decision the learned judge was dealing with a similar case where the charge sheet was directly filed before the Special Court/Tribunal under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. The learned Judge referred to the decisions reported in Chinnappa Reddy Jogi Reddy v. State, Inspector of Police Crl.A.No. 29 of 2004 dated 13-10-2006., Gangula Ashok v. State of AP. The learned Judge referred to the decisions reported in Chinnappa Reddy Jogi Reddy v. State, Inspector of Police Crl.A.No. 29 of 2004 dated 13-10-2006., Gangula Ashok v. State of AP. 2000 (1) AL T (Crl.) 174 (SC) M.A Kutappau v. E. Krishnan Nayanar 2004 (4) AL T 6.2 (DNSC) and A Goverdhan Reddy v. Superintendent of Police, Adilabad 1997 (2) AL T (Crl.) 677 (DB)(A.P.) which laid down the principle that unless the case is committed by concerned Magistrate under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Special Court cannot directly take cognizance of the case and proceed with it and in such a case, where the mandatory requirement is not followed, the accused was deprived of the valuable right to plead discharge before framing of the charge, which vitiates the trial and makes the conviction and sentence awarded liable to be set aside. The learned Judge, therefore, concluded that the procedure adopted in prosecuting the accused directly before the Court of Session, was illegal and consequently set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused of the charges leveled against him. Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the rival contentions and merits or otherwise of the judgment of conviction and sentence, in the present case, which is identical to the case under consideration before the learned Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2005, having been directly filed before and taken cognizance of by a Special Court/Tribunal, the same result should in variably follow. 8. Therefore the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellant by the impugned judgment are set aside and the fine amount, if any, paid by the accused/appellant shall be refunded to him. The accused/appellant is accordingly acquitted and the Transco calendar Case No. 20 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Tribunal for Transco Calendar Cases, Kurnool is dismissed. However, this judgment does• not preclude taking any fresh action against the accused in accordance with law, if it is so desired and decided.