2007 Supreme(Mad) 2155
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
C. Kathirvelu
Versus
D. Thillairaj & Others
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5633 of 2007
Decided On : 13-07-2007
For the Petitioner:M. Patturajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Rajendran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
Nowhere in the notification it is mentioned that there should be committal of the case by Magistrate.
Headnote:Electricity Act, 2003-Sections 135, 138 and 153-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482---Complaint under-Special court being of the view that on committal cognizance could be taken-Held, nowhere in notification of Govt. it is mentioned that there should be committal of the case by Magistrate-Direction given to Sessions Judge to take the file and proceed in the matter.
This petition has been filed to set aside the order of return by the Special Court, Madurai, dated 25.04.2007, and consequently direct the learned Special Court, Madurai to take back the complaint on file and proceed with it as per the provision of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The background facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this petition would run thus:
The grievance of the petitioner is that he being the Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board, is duty bound to file various complaints under the Electricity Act, 2003 as against the offenders. While so, he filed a complaint dated 01.03.2007 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, for the offences under Sections 135(1)(a)(b)(c) and 138(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003, by invoking Section 153 of the said Act. The learned Sessions Judge returned it on the ground that only on committal, he could take cognizance of the matter.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, such an order of the learned Sessions Judge, this petition has been focussed:
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. The perusal of the order dated 25.04.2007, would clearly show that the learned Sessions Judge misinterpreted the relevant G.O as well as Section 153 of the Electricity Act. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Gangula Ashok and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2000 SC 740 which in no way lays down the law that in all matters, relating to the Special Court, there should be committal. The Honourable Apex Court in the cited precedent highlights that in view of the express words used in Section 14 and 2(1)(d) of S.C and S.T Act, 1989, there should be committal of the case by the learned Magistrate and then only, the learned Sessions Judge could take cognizance of the matter. In this connection, I would like to refer to the decision of this Court in Dr. S. Sourubarani & another v. C.Selvi reported in 2005-1-L.W.(Crl.) 139 relating to the Human Rights Act.
7. No doubt, this Court relating to the Human Rights Act, relied upon the said decision and arrived at the conclusion that relating to the cases under the Human Rights Act also, there should be committal by the Magistrate and then only, the Court could take cognizance.
8. At this juncture, it is just and necessary to distinguish and differentiate between Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003, with that of the provisions relating to S.C and S.T Act, 1989 as well as the Human Rights Act. Section 14 of the S.C and S.T Act, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"14. Special Court:- For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrent of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazatette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act."
(emphasis added)
Section 30 of the Human Rights Act, would run thus:
"30. Human Rights Courts:- For the purpose of providing speedy trial of the offences arising out of violation of human rights, the State Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Human Rights Court to try the said offences:
PROVIDED that nothing in this section shall apply if -
(a) a Court of Session is already specified as a Special Court; or
(b) a Special Court is already constituted, for such offences under any other law for the time being in force."
(emphasis supplied)
Section 153 of the Electricity Act is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"153. Constitution of Special Courts:. (1) The State Government may, for the purposes of providing speedy trial of the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Special Courts as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in