S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This review petition is directed against the impugned order dated 30th September 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ.) Special Electricity Court in Complaint Case No. 134 of 2006, rejecting an application filed by the Petitioner Vardhman Properties Limited (VPL.) seeking review of an order dated 7th April 2006 passed by the learned ASJ summoning the Petitioner for the offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act 2003 (Act.).

2. The aforementioned complaint was filed by the Respondent BSES Rajdhani

Power Limited (BRPL.) in 2006 against Krishan Lal and VPL in the Special Electricity Court under Section 151 of the Act for determining their civil and criminal liability in terms of the Act. On 7th April 2006 the learned ASJ, Special Electricity Court, passed the following order:

Present: Deemed Addl. P.P. for the complainant.

Arguments heard on pre-summoning evidence. CW-1 is the authorized representative who had proved his complaint Ex.CW1/2 and CW2 is the member of the raid party who has proved the inspection report Ex.CW2/1 besides other documents. It is mentioned in the joint inspection report Ex.CW2/1 that it was a case of direct theft after bye-passing the meter and a connected load of 10.927 kw was found for industrial purpose. From the perusal of the record and the statement of the said witnesses, I am satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused Under Section 135 Electricity Act 2003. Let the accused be summoned for the said offence on filing of PF and RC and process be given dasti for 06.05.2006.

3. In September 2008 the Petitioner filed an application under Section 157 of the Act in the Special Electricity Court seeking review of the aforementioned order dated 7th April 2006. It was contended by the Petitioner that it was merely a registered consumer in whose name the connection stood and was not in any manner involved in the theft of electricity attributed to accused No. 1 Krishan Lal.

4. By the impugned order dated 30th September 2008 the learned ASJ, Special Electricity Court, dismissed the review application holding that the scope of Section 157 of the Act was restricted to an order by that Court under Section 154 of the Act. It was held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC.) permitting recall or review of a summoning order, and particularly in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal : 2004 (7) SCC 338, there was no power in the Special Electricity Court to recall the summoning order.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that under Section 154 of the Act it is only the Special Electricity Court which has the exclusive jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 135 of the Act. He submits that even the power to summon an accused after taking cognizance of the offence is traceable to Section 154 of the Act. It is submitted that the order dated 7th April 2006 was passed under Section154 of the Act, and would therefore reviewable under Section 157 of the Act.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand points out that the scope of Section 157 is limited particularly considering that under Section 155, the Electricity Act makes the CrPC, save and accept to the limited extend provided under the Act, applicable to the Special Electricity Court. She further refers to Section 151 of the Act which after amendment in 2007 specifically permits the Special Electricity Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Act.

7. In the considered view of this Court, there is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner. Under Section 151 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, it is only the Special Electricity Court constituted under Section 153 of the Act that has the exclusive jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 135 of the Act. The criminal case can be triggered by a