LexSRI A.M.C.S. SWAMY ADE/DPE/HYD (CENTRAL) versus MEHDI AGAH KARBALAI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 695 SRI A.M.C.S. SWAMY ADE/DPE/HYD (CENTRAL) v. MEHDI AGAH KARBALAI & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1102 of 2019) JULY 23, 2019 [R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings against respondent no.1 under the Electricity Act – The Electricity Department inspected the premises of consumer- respondent no.1 and found meter tampered – The said meter was replaced with another meter and earlier meter sent for examination which on examination was found to be tampered – Loss assessed at Rs.6.28 lacs – Case of appellant that offence committed by respondent no.1 was second offence and the first offence registered against respondent no.1 was compounded – Complaint registered under s.135 of 2003 Act – Special Court took cognizance of case under s.151 of the 2003 Act – Petition for quashing the proceedings filed on the ground that the Special Court took cognizance without any order of committal and the same was in violation of s.193 Cr.P.C. – High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings – On appeal, held: Second proviso to s.151 of the 2003 Act specially empowers the Special Court constituted under s.153 of the 2003 Act to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed – In view of the specific provision under s.151 of the 2003 Act, Special Court is empowered to take cognizance without there being an order of committal as contemplated under s.193, Cr.P.C. – High Court did not consider the said proviso to s.151 while passing the impugned order – The impugned order is set aside – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.151 and its proviso, s.193. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : It is true that as per the procedure under Section 193 Cr.P.C., no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has [2019] 9 S.C.R. 695 695 A B C D E F G H 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R. been committed to it by a Magistrate except as otherwise expressly provided by the Code, or any other law for the time being in force. Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is altogether a new provision. Section 151 of the Act provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorised by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose. Second proviso to Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, specially empowers the Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed. In view of the specific provision under Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, Special Court is empowered to take cognizance without there being an order of committal as contemplated under Section 193 Cr.P.C. When there is express provision in the Special Act empowering the Special Court to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed, it cannot be said that taking cognizance of offence by Special Court is in violation of Section 193 Cr.P.C. The High Court did not consider the said proviso to Section 151 and passed the impugned order. The order impugned is liable to be set aside. [Paras 10, 11] [701-A, B, D-G] State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor v. M/s. Shalini Steels Private Limited, Bollaram, Medak District 2011 CrlLJ 67 ; Gangula Ashok & another v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000) 2 SCC 504 : [2000] 1 SCR 468 – referred to. Case Law Reference 2011 CrlLJ 67 referred to Para 4(c) [2000] 1 SCR 468 referred to Para 4(c) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1102 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 13678 of 2011. A B C D E F G H 697 Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Rakesh K. Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv., M. Srinivas R. Rao, Sarath S. Janardanan, Karri Venkata Reddy, Abid Ali Beeran P, S.Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Officer of the State Distribution Utility Southern Power Distribution of Telangana Limited (formerly known as APCPDCL) challenging the order dated 03.12.2018 pas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.