1. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on 27th August 2008 and the Judgment was reserved. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief.

2. One Mr.Dharmaraj Pandharinath Pethkar, Deputy Executive Engineer of Flying Squad of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board lodged F.I.R on 5th September 2003 with Bhor Police Station alleging commission of offence under section 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act,2003 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The allegation made in the F.I.R was as regards theft of electricity. On completion of the investigation, on 29th September 2003, the concerned police officer filed a charge-sheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. Cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on the basis of the said report. On 22nd February 2006, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. An application for discharge was filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court which has been dismissed by the order dated 28th July 2006 by the Sessions Court. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings of the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the section 151 of the said Act of 2003. He submitted that section 151 of the said Act provides that no court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under the said Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the appropriate Government or appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorised by them or Chief Electrical Inspector or Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company as the case may be for this purpose. The said section 151 of the said Act was amended with effect from 23rd June 2005. He submitted that thus till 23rd June 2005, it was not open for any court to take cognizance of the offence on a police report as done by the learned Magistrate in this case. He pointed out that the said amendment to section 151 permitting cognizance to be taken upon the police report was brought on the statute book with effect from 23rd June 2005. He submitted that in the present case, cognizance was taken long before on 23rd June 2005. He, therefore, submitted that the entire proceedings were bad in law. He placed reliance on the decision of this court in case Shakambari Industries, Akola and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another [2006 (2) Mh.L.J. page 170] as well as another decision of this court in the case of Dr.Kasim s/o Maulana Razzak Saheb Chimthanwala Vs. State of Maharashtra (in Criminal Application No.655 of 2004 decided on 12th March 2004).

4. The learned counsel for the second Respondent submitted that even assuming that the cognizance was wrongly taken by the learned Magistrate, in view of clause (e) of section 460 of the said Code of 1973, the proceedings of the case cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the learned Magistrate was not so empowered. He submitted that in any case on 22nd February 2006, when the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions, in view of the Maharashtra Amendment to section 151 of the said Act, on that day the learned Magistrate had power to take cognizance on the basis of the police report. He, therefore, submitted that no interference was called for and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application for discharge.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions. Section 151 of the said Act before the Maharashtra Amendment was 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 Commission or any of their officer authorised by them or a Chief El