SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 47

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
R. S. Garg, J
Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Prasad Agrawal – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 49/07|Criminal Revision No. 573/06|Criminal Revision No. 349/07|Criminal Revision No. 453/07



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjay K. Agrawal
For the Respondents: A. S. Gaharwar

The court upheld that cognizance of electricity theft offences can be taken on authorized complaints and clarified that the 2007 amendment allows police reports for cognizance, applicable retrospectively.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 151 - Cognizance of offences - The Court may take cognizance of an offence relating to electricity theft only upon a written complaint by authorized officers of the Government, as mandated by the Electricity Act. The amendment by the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 clarifies that cognizance can also be taken on police reports. (Paras 21, 43, 46)

(B) Judicial Powers - The taking of cognizance is a judicial function that should be exercised within its legal framework. The Court must adhere to the substantive provisions as laid out in statutory law, avoiding delegations that may extend beyond statutory limits. (Paras 41, 46)

Facts of the case:
Criminal revisions were filed against orders of Special Judges regarding electricity theft accusations, questioning the legality of cognizance based on police reports in violation of the Electricity Act.

Findings of Court:
The Court allows revisions filed by the Board, asserting its authority to take cognizance based on authorized complaints and the necessity for procedural clarity in handling electricity theft cases.

Issues: The legality of the Special Court's cognizance of offences based on police reports and the retrospective application of the 2007 amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: The legislative intent in the amendment aims to facilitate effective prosecution of cognizable offences, therefore supporting the notion that such amendments apply retrospectively in procedural law.

Result: The criminal revisions are allowed and impugned orders set aside for two, while the other revisions are dismissed.

1. These petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the subject - matter of the dispute involved in these petition is identical and common questions of law are involved for adjudication of these petitions.

2. In Criminal Revision No. 49/07 the report was lodged by Chhattisgarh Electricity Board (for brevity 'the Board') against the non - applicant No. 2 on 31-3-2006 regarding theft of electricity on 23-2-2006 and accordingly, Crime No. 227/06 for the offence punishable under S.126 and S.135 of the Electricity Act , 2003 (in short 'the Act of 2003) was registered and charge - sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Bilaspur. The Special Judge by the impugned order dated 26th September, 2006 passed in E. Cr. Case No. 4/06 allowed the application of the non - applicants for the present and discharged the non - applicants with liberty to the Board that it can take proper action in accordance with law.

3. In Criminal Revision No. 573/06 on the report of Junior Engineer, C.S.E.B., offence was registered against the non - applicant No. 1 - Rajendra Prasad Agrawal for commission of electricity theft on 28-4-2006 in Police Station Champa. Non - applicant No. 1 moved an application under S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. After hearing counsel for the respective parties learned A.S.J. observed vide impugned order dated 6-6-2006 passed in B.A. No. 998/06 that for the offence under S. 135 of the Act of 2003 cognizance of the offence can be taken by any Court only on the complaint under S. 151of the Act and any other procedure would be illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, action taken by the police cannot be termed to be in accordance with law and the same is vitiated. Accordingly, the Station House Officer, Champa was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In view of the above observations of the Court, the counsel appearing for non - applicant No. 1 did not press his application and the same was accordingly, rejected.

4. In Criminal Revision No. 349/07, preferred by Vijay Krishna Dixit, on the basis of complaint of the Board Crime No. 226 / 06 was registered on 31st March, 2006 in Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur for the alleged electricity theft committed by the applicant on 24th February, 2006. Accordingly, a charge - sheet was filed for the offence punishable under S.135, S.126 and S.150 of the Act of 2003. Learned Special Judge vide impugned order dated 22-5-2007 passed in Cr. Case No. 32/06 rejected the objection of the applicant and held that on the complaint of a competent authority of the Board the police rightly took cognizance of the offence and filed charge - sheet.

5. In Criminal Revision No. 453/07, filed by Dr. Sita Ram Agrawal, on the report dated1st April, 2006 of the Board for theft of electricity on 1-3-2006 offence under S.135 and S.126 of the Act of 2003 was registered in Police Station Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur against the applicant. The Special Judge vide impugned order dated 23-7-2007 passed in Case No. 30/06 rejected the application for discharge of the applicant and held that the competent authority under the Electricity Rules has lodged the written report with the police and after due inspection charge - sheet has been filed and the same is not in violation of S. 151 of the Act of 2003.

6\ Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the non - applicants No. 1 and 2 in Cr. Rev. No. 49/07 argued that there is no provision in the Act of 2003 to take cognizance of an offence under the Act of 2003 and the Special Judge could not have taken cognizance of the offence under S.126 and S.135 of the Act on a police report in view of S. 151 of the Act of 2003. The Electricity (Amendment) Act of 2007 came into force w.e.f. 15th June, 2007 whereby a provision has been made that cognizance of the offence under Act can be taken on the report of police officer filed under S. 173 of the Cr. P.C. when the accused bei






































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top