JUDGMENT Swapna Joshi, J. - This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 25th August, 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Akola in Special Electricity Act Case No.21/2006 (2/2006), whereby the learned Judge disposed off the complaint and acquitted the accused. 2. The prosecution case as per the complaint under Section 135 (c) read with Section 138 (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is that on 09.11.2005, at about 3.15 pm, the complainant had gone to inspect aforesaid electricity Meter and the set of electricity connections fitted thereat which was allotted in the name of Accused No.1. At that time, accused no.1 was not found present. However, Accused No.2 was present thereat. It reveals that Accused No.2 himself was looking after the business affairs of the said flour mills and also using the said electricity meter. The complainant informed him that they had come there for inspection of electricity Meter and the set of electricity connections fitted thereat. On being so informed, accused no.2 gave his consent for the said inspection. Accordingly, the inspection of electricity Meter and the set of electricity connections fitted thereat had been carried out in the presence of Non-Applicant No.2 and the panchas. During the course of inspection of his electricity Meter and set of electricity connections, it was found that he had connected 10 Horse Power Meter for the electricity supply; that the capacitors necessary for the electricity supply were fitted thereat, however, the same were not in working condition; that the meter fitted thereat for computing the numbers of electricity units consumed by the consumer was revolving very slowly; and that the seals affixed to the meter were doubtful. However, for want of equipments necessary for testing the meter, the complainant had to suspend the said inspection dated 09.11.2005, by affixing the paper seal duly signed by the complainant and Accused No.2 to the said meter in the presence of Accused No.2 and the panchas; and by instructing Accused No.2 to keep the meter as it is. Thereafter, the complainant prepared the Inspection Report of the state of affairs noticed thereat in the presence of Accused No.1 at the spot itself. Having verified and found the contents thereof as per the state of affairs noticed thereat, Accused No.2 has signed the said Inspection Report. 3. Thereafter, the complainant prepared the Inspection Report of the state of affairs noticed thereat in the presence of Accused No.1 at the spot itself. Having verified and found the contents thereof as per the state of affairs noticed thereat, Accused No.2 has signed the said Inspection Report. 3. Finding it necessary in the inspection, dated 09.11.2005, to test the said electricity meter, the complainant informed the Sub- Division concerned to change the said disputed electricity meter and bring it to the testing division for testing purpose. On being so informed, the testing division concerned, on 11.11.2005, removed the said HPL Make disputed electricity meter bearing No.174845, installed in the building of the accused in the presence of Accused No.2; and brought it for the purpose of testing. The said testing division concerned, on 12.12.2005, in the presence of Accused No.2 and the complainant, broke open the said meter by breaking the seal thereof. Thereupon, it was found that, the red coloured wires from the secondary sides of all three series in the said meter were cut and the resistances were connected in series in its places. The said additional resistances in the said meter were found to be not connected by the complainant, but by the accused himself merely with an intention to commit illegal acts; that due to such illegally connected additional resistances, the electricity being supplied through the said meter was not being fully computed; that due to such illegally connected additional resistances, the said meter was revolving at the speed of 83.29 % less than that of the actual speed; and that the paper seal duly signed by the Complainant and Accused No.2 and affixed to the said meter on 09.11.2005 was found as it is, however, the plastic and lead seals affixed thereon were appearing to be doubtful. Therefore, the appellant suspected theft of electricity; by tampering the electricity meter. 4. Significantly, regarding the theft of electricity brought to light in the aforesaid inspection, Accused No.2 has executed his Consent Letter, dated 12.12.2005, to the effect that he would pay the bill towards the electricity consumed by him and tendered it to the complainant in the presence of the panchas. The Complainant took the photographs of the aforesaid fraudulent acts done in the said electricity meter, by the accused in the presence of Accused No.2. The Complainant took the photographs of the aforesaid fraudulent acts done in the said electricity meter, by the accused in the presence of Accused No.2. After conducting the formal investigation, the complaint was lodged by the complainant Deputy Executive Engineer, Flying Squad, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Akola. 5. On receipt of the said complaint, the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola framed the charge at Exh.23 on 15.7.2006 for the offence punishable under Section 135 (c) r/w 138 (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 6. On 25.8.2006, an application came to be filed by the accused for dismissal of the complaint. The learned Special Judge, Akola has passed an order on the said application stating that as the accused has deposited the electricity charges within a period of seven days from the service of the bill for theft of electricity as per Section 126 of Electricity Act, he should not be held liable for any action by the authority, if such amount has been deposited within a period of seven days. It was observed in the said order that as the electricity charges were deposited within a period of seven days, therefore, he disposed of the complaint and acquitted the accused. 7. Heard Shri S.V. Purohit, the learned advocate for the appellant and Shri S.D. Chopde, the learned advocate for the respondent. With their able assistance, I have gone through the case papers. 8. The learned advocate for the appellant vociferously argued that the criminal liability of the accused is under Section 135 (c ) r/w Section 138 (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003, as he has committed the theft of electricity and, therefore, the charges were framed by the learned Special Judge, Akola for the said allegations. It is further submitted that in view thereof it was necessary for the Special Judge to conduct the trial in that regard and to give an opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case by examining the witnesses. However, the procedure under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not at all followed by the learned Special Judge. He further pointed out that the provisions under Section 155 of the Electricity Act contemplates the power of the Court of Sessions. However, the procedure under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not at all followed by the learned Special Judge. He further pointed out that the provisions under Section 155 of the Electricity Act contemplates the power of the Court of Sessions. Hence, it was argued that, in these circumstances, it was incumbent on the learned Special Judge to allow the prosecution to examine the witnesses and to prove its case. However, no such opportunity was granted by the learned Special Judge and directly the order of acquittal was passed on the ground that under the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, as the assessment charges of Rs.57,430/- have been deposited, the accused was not liable to undergo the trial. 9. As against this, the learned advocate for the respondent vehemently argued that under the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, if the necessary assessment charges are paid by the accused, then he shall not be subjected to any further liability or any action by any authority. 10. I have considered the rival contentions of both the sides. In this regard, a useful reference of the judgment reported in the case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) and another .vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108 the Hon ble Apex Court has observed as under : 22. ......... The provisions of Section 126 of the 2003 Act are self-explanatory, they are intended to cover situations other than the situations specifically covered under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. This would further be a reason for this Court to adopt an interpretation which would help in attaining the legislative intent. The Hon ble Apex Court has discussed about the distinction between Sections 126 and 135 of the 2003 Act, as under : 24. Upon their plain reading, the marked differences in the contents of Sections 126 and 135 of the 2003 Act are obvious. They are distinct and different provisions which operate in different fields and have no common premise in law. We have already noticed that Section 126 and 127 of the 2003 Act read together constitute a complete code in themselves covering all relevant considerations for passing of an order of assessment in cases which do not fall under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. 25. We have already noticed that Section 126 and 127 of the 2003 Act read together constitute a complete code in themselves covering all relevant considerations for passing of an order of assessment in cases which do not fall under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. 25. Section 135 of the 2003 Act falls under Part XIV relating to offences and penalties and title of the section is theft of electricity . The section opens with the words whoever, dishonestly does any or all of the acts specified under clauses (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Besides imposition of punishment, as specified under these provisions or the proviso thereto, Sub-section (1A) of Section 135 of the 2003 Act provides that without prejudice to the provisions of the 2003 Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, through officer of rank authorised in this behalf by the appropriate commission, may immediately disconnect the supply of electricity and even take other measures enumerated under subsections (2) to (4) of the said Section. The fine which may be imposed under Section 135 of the 2003 Act is directly proportional to the number of convictions and is also dependent on the extent of load abstracted. 26. In contradistinction to these provisions, Section 126 of the 2003 Act would be applicable to the cases where there is no theft of electricity but the electricity is being consumed in violation of the terms and conditions of supply leading to malpractices which may squarely fall within the expression unauthorised use of electricity . This assessment/proceedings would commence with the inspection of the premises by an assessing officer and recording of a finding that such consumer is indulging in an unauthorized use of electricity . Then the assessing officer shall provisionally assess, to the best of his judgment, the electricity charges payable by such consumer, as well as pass a provisional assessment order in terms of Section 126 (2) of the 2003 Act. 27. Then the assessing officer shall provisionally assess, to the best of his judgment, the electricity charges payable by such consumer, as well as pass a provisional assessment order in terms of Section 126 (2) of the 2003 Act. 27. The officer is also under obligation to serve a notice in terms of Section 126 (3) of the 2003 Act upon any such consumer requiring him to file his objections, if any, against the provisional assessment before a final order of assessment is passed within thirty days from the date of service of such order of provisional assessment. Thereafter, any person served with the order of provisional assessment may accept such assessment and deposit the amount with the licensee within seven days of service of such provisional assessment order upon him or prefer an appeal against the resultant final order under Section 127 of the 2003 Act. The order of assessment under Section 126 and the period for which such order would be passed has to be in terms of sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 126 of the 2003 Act. The Explanation to Section 126 is of some significance, which we shall deal with shortly hereinafter. Section 126 of the 2003 Act falls under Part XII and relates to investigation and enforcement and empowers the assessing officer to pass an order of assessment. 28. Section 135 of the 2003 Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and the penalty that can be imposed for such theft. This squarely falls within the dimensions of Criminal Jurisprudence and mens rea is one of the relevant factors for finding a case of theft. On the contrary, Section 126 of the 2003 Act does not speak of any criminal intendment and is primarily an action and remedy available under the civil law. It does not have features or elements which are traceable to the criminal concept of mens rea. 29. Thus, it would be clear that the expression unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the 2003 Act deals with cases of unauthorized use, even in absence of intention. These cases would certainly be different from cases where there is dishonest abstraction of electricity by any of the methods enlisted under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. 29. Thus, it would be clear that the expression unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of the 2003 Act deals with cases of unauthorized use, even in absence of intention. These cases would certainly be different from cases where there is dishonest abstraction of electricity by any of the methods enlisted under Section 135 of the 2003 Act. A clear example would be, where a consumer has used excessive load as against the installed load simpliciter and there is violation of the terms and conditions of supply, then, the case would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act. On the other hand, where a consumer, by any of the means and methods as specified under Section 135 (a) to 135 (e) of the 2003 Act, has abstracted energy with dishonest intention and without authorization, like providing for a direct connection bypassing the installed meter, the case would fall under section 135 of the 2003 Act. 30. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the cases that would fall under Section 126 of the 2003 Act on the one hand and Section 135 of the 2003 Act on the other. There is no commonality between them in law. They operate in different and distinct fields. The assessing officer has been vested with the powers to pass provisional and final order of assessment in cases of unauthorized use of electricity and cases of consumption of electricity beyond contracted load will squarely fall under such power. The legislative intention is to cover the cases of malpractices and unauthorized use of electricity and then theft which is governed by the provisions of Section 135 of the 2003 Act. 11. This, the Hon ble Apex Court in terms has held that Section 135 of the 2003 Act deals with an offence of theft of electricity and the penalty can be imposed for such theft. This squarely falls within the dimensions of Criminal Jurisprudence and mens rea is one of the relevant factors for finding a case of theft. On the contrary, Section 126 of the 2003 Act does not speak of any criminal intendment and is primarily an action and remedy available under the civil law. 12. This squarely falls within the dimensions of Criminal Jurisprudence and mens rea is one of the relevant factors for finding a case of theft. On the contrary, Section 126 of the 2003 Act does not speak of any criminal intendment and is primarily an action and remedy available under the civil law. 12. Applying the aforesaid provisions laid down by the Hon ble Apex court, it is necessary to give an opportunity to the prosecution to conduct the criminal trial by examining the necessary witnesses, in order to prove their case for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 13. As discussed above, the learned Special Judge has not given any opportunity to the prosecution to prove its case by adducing the cogent evidence. It is, therefore, just and proper to remand the matter back to the trial Court for its proper adjudication. Hence, the following order is passed : ORDER 1) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. 2) The impugned order dated 25th August, 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Akola is hereby quashed and set aside. 3) The matter is remanded to the trial court to allow the prosecution to conduct the trial, in accordance with the law. 4) Parties to appear before the trial Court on 20.01.2020. The trial Court is requested to dispose off the matter within six months thereafter.