ORDER

1. Leave granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 28th May, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Miscellaneous No. 19178 of 2007 whereby the High Court has quashed the first information report No. 18 of 2007.

2. The brief facts of this case are, that on 24.1.2007 at about 12.30 p.m., a raiding party led by Vijay Kumar Singh, Assistant Electrical Engineer conducted a surprise raid in the premises of the rice mill of the Respondent No. 1 in Village Dariyapur under Naubatpur Police Station and found a 5 H.P. Motor running directly with electrical energy extracted from the main supply line illegally by attaching a hook. Thereafter, the Assistant Electrical Engineer Naubatpur filed a complaint before the police on the same day with regard to the theft of electricity being committed by the Respondent No. 1 and on the basis of the said complaint, a first information report was registered bearing Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 39/44 of the Electricity Act, 1910.

3. It is an admitted position that at that time when the complaint was filed, the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had already come into force. However, the complaint seems to have been filed under the old Act i.e. Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The Respondent No. 1, therefore, moved the High Court for quashing of the FIR particularly on the ground that under Section 151 of the Act, only a private complaint could be filed and no police case was maintainable. Section 151 of the Act on the date of complaint was as under:-

No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them, or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the governing company.

4. Though the report was made by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, it was pointed out before the High Court that even if the police had decided to file a report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure. Complaining the theft, the court could not have taken the cognizance as provided under Section 151 of the Act and only a complaint should have been filed in writing by the appropriate Government or their officers.

5. The High Court accepted this contention and held that the very inception of the case was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the first information report in the present case could not be sustained. This is the judgment which has fallen for our consideration.

6. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the appeal.

7. Considering the position in law, it is obvious that the High Court has completely misconstrued the relevant provision. Considering the definition of "theft" of electricity in Section 135 of the Act, there could be no difficulty that in the first information report, the theft as contemplated in Section 135 of the Act was reported. The only question is as to whether the police could have investigated on that basis and could have filed a charge-sheet against the Respondent No. 1-accused, particularly in view of the language of Section 151 of the Act.

8. Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant invites our attention to present Section151 of the Act and more particularly to the proviso which has been added by way of an amendment. This proviso came by way of Act 26 of 2007 and reads as under:-

Provided that the court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of the police officer filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Provided further that a special court constituted under Section 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.

Therefore, ordinarily, there is no difficulty now in the way of the police to investigate as also to prosecute the accused if