The jurisdiction for civil liability in electricity theft cases lies with the Commercial Court, not the Special Court, which handles criminal offences.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. The present petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for quashing of the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Commercial Court, Khambhaliya, rejecting application Exhibit 113 filed in Commercial Suit No. 19 of 2019.

2. The sole ground to challenge the order impugned is that the claim for rejection of the plaint/return of plaint was made by the petitioner at a highly belated stage. Challenging this order, initially it is sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner in a matter of theft of electricity, the jurisdiction lies with the Special court in view of Section 153 and 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 . The suit for recovery of the dues on the allegations of theft of electricity was initially filed as a civil suit before the Civil court. However, the said suit had been transmitted to the Commercial Court and registered as Commercial Civil Suit No. 19 of 2019.

3. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the Special court as conferred under Section 154 of the Electricity Act, 2003 , suffice it to note that the Special court is constituted to try the offences punishable under Sections 135 to 140 and 150, in a matter of theft of electricity, as a criminal offence.

4. The sub-section (1) of Section 154 read with sub-section (3) thereof indicates that the Special court is empowered to try the offences referred to in the above noted Sections in a summary way in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Sections 263 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply to such trial, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 260 or Section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 154 further states that where in the course of summary trial under the said sub-section, it appears to the Special Court that the nature of the case is such that it is undesirable to try such case in summary way, the Special Court shall recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of such offence. It is lawful for the Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years in case of conviction in a summary trial under sub-section (3) of Section 154. Sub-section (5) of Section 154 further provides that the Special Court shall also determine the civil liability against the consumer in terms of money for theft of electricity, which shall not be less than an amount equal to two times of the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of electricity or the exact period of theft, if determined, which ever is less, and the amount so determined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of a civil court.

5. The explanation of sub-section (6) of Section 154 is also to be taken note of, which explains the words "civil liability" means loss or damage incurred by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, due to the commission of an offence referred to in Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150. It is, thus, clear that the civil liability, which shall have to be determined by the Special Court in a proven case of theft of electricity shall be in the form of loss or damages incurred by the Board or the licensee in the matter of theft of electricity.

6. On a query made by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the proceedings for conviction of the petitioner for the criminal offence of theft was instituted before the Special Court and tried and the petitioner has been acquitted the petitioner herein. The result is that there was no question of determination of civil liability in the shape of damages