1. This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 30th November 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge („ASJ?) Special Electricity Court in Complaint Case No. 421/06 holding that a prima facie case was made out to try the Petitioner for the offence under Section 135 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003 („Act?). It also challenges an order passed on the same date by the learned ASJ framing notice against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 135 (b) of the Act. The prayer in this petition is that the learned ASJ should be directed to hear the Petitioner on charge and pass orders accordingly.

2. The facts in brief are that an inspection was conducted by the officers of the respondent BSES Rajdhani Power Limited („BRPL?) in the premises of the Petitioner at WZ-30A, Ground floor, Channa Mal Park, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. According to the officers of BRPL the inspection revealed that the Petitioner was indulging in dishonest abstraction of energy („DAE?) and that the total connected load being used illegally by the Petitioner by tampering the meter was 49.376 KW as against the sanctioned load of 44.76 KW. On that basis the aforementioned complaint was filed in the court of the learned ASJ, Special Electricity Court, Delhi. On 30th November 2007 the learned ASJ passed the following order: “30.11.07 Present: Counsel for the complainant deemed APP, along with AR Sh. Pankaj Tandon. Accused Balbir Singh present on bail. Second accused Hari Singh impleaded as the registered consumer of consumption was stated to have already expired. The fact of death of Sh. Hari Singh was directed to be verified through concerned PS but it appears that verification report has not yet been submitted. Accused Balbir Singh states at bar that Hari Singh was his father and he has already placed death certificate of Sh. Hari Singh. His statement is recorded on oath to this effect. Proceedings against Hari Singh dropped as abated. This is a case of dishonest abstraction of energy according to the prosecution case. In view of the inspection report and other material referred to in the speaking order, a prima facie case to try accused for an offence under Section 135 (2) of the Electricity Act is made out. Notice of offence is given to him to which pleads not guilty. Matter be put up on 28.2.2008 for prosecution evidence.”

As already mentioned on the same date, notice was also framed against the Petitioner for the aforementioned offence.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that in terms of Section 154 of the Act the procedure envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 („CrPC?) for trial of warrant cases was mandatorily required to be followed by the learned ASJ particularly since the offence under Section 135 is punishable with imprisonment for term which may extend to three years. It is submitted that under Section 154 (3) of the Act a discretion is vested in the Special Court to try the offence under Section 135 of the Act in a summary way in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the said CrPC and further that the provisions of Section 263 to 265 CrPC shall, “so far as may be, apply to such trial.” Although the first proviso to Section 154 (3) states that where it appears to the Special Court in the course of summary trial that the nature of the case is such that it is undesirable to try it in summary way, it can proceed to rehear the case as “warrant case”, according to counsel for the petitioner, the Special Court has to necessarily give reasons why it is not proceeding to try the case as a summary case. He sought to place reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. v. Ch. Prabhakar AIR 2004 SC 3368. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the Special Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence straightway without the case being committed to it by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM). He sough