Skip to content


Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Rajendra Singh and Party - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal;Electricity

Court

Rajasthan High Court

Decided On

Case Number

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 168 of 2005

Judge

Reported in

RLW2005(1)Raj446; 2005WLC(Raj)UC205

Acts

Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 135 to 139 and 154; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 193

Appellant

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Respondent

Rajendra Singh and Party

Appellant Advocate

R.K. Agrawal, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

Arun Sharma, Adv.

Disposition

Petition dismissed

Cases Referred

Moly and Anr. v. State of Kerala

Excerpt:


.....to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. the other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. a full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. if a person falls under the definition of workman under section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the i.d. act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said act. a perusal of section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the i.d. act. however, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. the..........speedy trial of offences referred to in sections 135 to 139. section 154 of the act provides the procedure and power of the special court. sub section (1) of section 154 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under sections 135 to 139 shall be triable only by the special court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. section 155 of the act provides that the special court shall be deemed to be a court of session and shall have all powers of a court of session and the person conducting a prosecution before the special court shall be deemed to be a public prosecutor.3. it is clear that as per section 153 of the act, the special court constituted for the purposes of speedy trial of the offences referred to in sections 135 to 139 of the act exorcises the powers of a court of session. section 193 cr.p.c. does not empower the court of session to take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is committed to it by a magistrate under this code.4. similar matter came up for consideration before the apex court in moly and anr. v. state of kerala.....

Judgment:


K.C. Sharma, J.

1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam, through its Assistant Engineer (O&M;), Gangapur City has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Offence), Sawaimadhopur, by which the learned Special Judge has returned the complaint filed under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act' to the petitioner for presentation before the competent court, inasmuch as, having gone through the complaint the learned Special Judge was of the view that the court subordinate to it should have committed the case to this court,

2. The Special Court .was constituted for the purposes of providing speedy trial of offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139. Section 154 of the Act provides the procedure and power of the Special Court. Sub section (1) of Section 154 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under Sections 135 to 139 shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. Section 155 of the Act provides that the special court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and shall have all powers of a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.

3. It is clear that as per Section 153 of the Act, the special court constituted for the purposes of speedy trial of the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act exorcises the powers of a Court of Session. Section 193 Cr.P.C. does not empower the court of Session to take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate under this code.

4. Similar matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Moly and Anr. v. State of Kerala (I), wherein the Special Court exercising powers of the Court of Session straightway took cognizance of the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate. Their Lordships considering the provisions of Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Act of 1989, concluded as hereunder:

'Neither in the Code nor in the Act is there any provision whatsoever, not even by implication, (hat the specified Court of Session (Special Court) can take cognizance of the offence under the Act as a court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate. If that be so, there is no reason to think that the charge- sheet or a complaint can straight away be filed before such special Court for offences under the Act. It can be discerned from the hierarchical settings of criminal courts that the court of Session is given a superior and special status. Hence we think that the legislature would have thoughtfully relieved the Court of Sessions from the work of performing all the preliminary formalities which Magistrates have to do until the case is committed to the court of Session'.

5. In the case at hand, there is no provision whatsoever, under the Act of 2003 thereby empowering; the specified Court of Session (Special Court) to take cognizance of the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139 of the Act, as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is bring committed to it by a Magistrate. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Special Court has rightly returned the complaint to the complainant for being presented to the concerned Magistrate and hence the impugned order calls for no interference.

6. Consequently, this misc. petition is dismissed as it being devoid of merit.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //