Full Judgment
Crl.M.C.No.998/2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943 CRL.MC NO. 998 OF 2014 CRIME NO.842/2004 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2/2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII, ERNAKULAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED: C. NAJEEB, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.K.MOIDU, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHICAGO PLAZA, RESIDING AT THAMANNA, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM- 18. BY ADV SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (REPRESENTING THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM). 2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, COLLEGE ROAD, ERNAKULAM. (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.02.2014 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1432/14 IN CRL.M.C.998/2014) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.816/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.M.C.No.998/2014 2
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.2/2013 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam, has filed this Crl.M.C. seeking to quash all further proceedings therein. The aforesaid Sessions Case arises from Crime No 842/2004 of Ernakulam Central Police Station.
2. Offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 135, 138, 140 and 149 of Electricity Act. The aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner, on the basis of an inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad of Kerala State Electricity Board, on 02.10.2004. During the aforesaid inspection, it was found that the petitioner was indulging in illegal sale of electricity. The police, after completing the investigation has filed Annexure-A charge sheet for the offences mentioned above and cognizance of the same was taken thereon by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Later, when a Special Court was constituted for the offences under the Electricity Act, 2003, Crl.M.C.No.998/2014 3 the case was transferred to the Special Court i.e., Additional Sessions Court VII, Ernakulam.
3. The basic contention raised by the petitioner is that as
per Section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003 [ as stood prior to the amendment vide Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 (Act 26 of 2007)], no court can take cognizance of the offence under Electricity Act, except on a complaint made by the authorities mentioned therein. According to him police is not one among the authorities mentioned therein and the said provision does not authorize the court to take cognizance on a final report submitted by the police.
4. Heard Sri.B.H.Mansoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.A.Arunkumar, learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor.
5. As regards the offences under the provisions of
Electricity Act, 2003, the contention raised by the petitioner is covered against him as per judgment in Vishal Agarwal and Another v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and Crl.M.C.No.998/2014 4 Another [2014 (1) KLT 1013]. It is pertinent to note in this regard that, as per the amendment brought in with effect from 15.06.2007 a proviso was added to Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, permitting the Court to take cognizance of the offences under the Act, upon a police report as well. In
the said judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court categorically observed that the amendment brought to Section 151 of Electricity Act with effect from 15.06.2007, enables the court to take cognizance on the basis of final report of the police and such amendment is clarificatory in nature. Thus it was held that, the permission granted as per the amended provision, is applicable to all proceedings including the cases where the date of occurrence of the offence is prior to the amendment. In the light of the principles laid down as above, the contention of the petitioner with regard to the cognizance taken on the offences under Section 135, 138, 140 and 149 of the Electricity Act are not legally sustainable.
In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C is devoid of any merits and accordingly it is dismissed. However, it is clarified Crl.M.C.No.998/2014 5 that, the petitioner shall be entitled to raise all his contentions before the trial court and shall also be entitled to avail the compounding facility, as contemplated under section 152 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if he chooses.
Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/28.10.21 Crl.M.C.No.998/2014 6 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 998/2014 PETITIONER ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE-A: A COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.842/2004 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION. Crl.M.C.No.998/2014 7 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 816/2014 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.976/2006 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION.