1. An important question, "whether Section 15 of the Electricity [Amendment] Act, 2007 [26 of 2007] has got retrospective operation?" has come up for consideration in this case.

2. The appellants are A1 and A2 in S.C.No.122 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal Division. They have been convicted by judgment dated 29.09.2006 for offence under Section 135(1) (b) of The Electricity Act, 2003 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, they are now before this Court with this criminal appeal.

3. The facts of the prosecution case in brief would be as follows:- The appellants are father and son respectively. The 1st appellant/A1 is the consumer of electricity under Electricity Service Connection No.642 installed at D.No.3/29, Teachers Colony, Edhirmedu, Kumarapalayam to run the power-looms. On 22.06.2004, P.W.2, the then Assistant Executive Engineer, TNEB, Kumarapalayam along with P.W.1, the then Assistant Executive Engineer [O & M] and P.W.3, another Engineer of TNEB made a surprise inspection at the above premises. At that time, A1 was not present. However, A2 was present. P.W.2 gave a notice of inspection to A2. In the presence of A2, P.Ws.1 to 3 conducted inspection, during which, they noticed the power-looms running. But, they also noticed that the electricity meter was not running and recording the electricity consumption. They developed suspicion. When, P.W.2 further probed, he found a small piece of belt inserted in between the meter and the meter board. When the belt was removed, the meter started running. Thus, it came to light that the belt had been inserted in order to prevent the meter running and recording the electricity consumption. M.O.2 is the said belt piece. M.O.1 is the entire meter with board [series]. Thereafter, P.W.1 prepared an observation mahazar. A2 declined to sign the same. P.W.1 signed the observation mahazar as a witness. P.W.4, the Village Administrative Officer, who was present at the time of inspection also signed the observation mahazar as a witness. Ex.P.2 is the said observation mahazar. As per the relevant rules, P.W.2 calculated the electricity so stealthily consumed by the accused at 14021 units and estimated the loss at Rs.54,331/-. P.W.2 gave an offer to A2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as compounding fees so as to avoid complaint to the police. A2 expressed his inability to pay the same. Therefore, P.W.1 preferred a complaint at Kumarapalayam Police Station under Ex.P.1. Based on the above said complaint, P.W.10, the then Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.467 of 2004 for offence under Section 135(1)(b) of The Electricity Act, 2003. He proceeded to the place of occurrence at 3.30 p.m. and prepared an observation mahazar under Ex.P.12. He examined the prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. He recovered the electricity meter along with the meter board [M.O.1 series] as well as the piece of belt [M.O.2] from the place of occurrence. He requested P.W.5 to take photographs of the meter board and belt etc. Then, he examined the other prosecution witnesses including P.W.4, the Village Administrative Officer. He arrested A1 at 7.30 p.m. on 22.06.2004 at Kumarapalayam bus stand and forwarded him for judicial remand. Then, he forwarded the material objects to the court. He examined the photographer and collected the photographs with negatives. Then, he handed over the investigation to P.W.11. P.W.11, the then Inspector of Police took up further investigation and on completing the investigation, he laid the final report under Section 135 (1) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 r/w 34 of IPC against both the accused.

4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the said police report and after complying with the requirements of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

5. Based on the above materials, the t