Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
7. On the other hand, Sri Sirajudeen, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, referring to the counter affidavit and other material on record, has submitted that the disconnection was made on 12.11.2009 and the complaint was lodged on 24.11.2009 which is ex facie time barred and the same is contrary to the proviso to Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Amendment Act 26 of 2007). It is further submitted that the Court which has taken cognizance of the offence is not a Special Court within the meaning of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is further submitted that merely because the Presiding Officer is of the rank of Additional Sessions Judge, it cannot be construed as a Special Court within the meaning of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is submitted that as the Court lacks jurisdiction, further the complaint was not lodged within twenty-four hours from disconnection, the cognizance taken against respondent No.1 is rightly quashed by the High Court and there are no grounds to interfere.
8. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and the other material placed on record.
9. From a perusal of the order passed by the High Court, it is clear that the petition for quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed by respondent No.1 only on two grounds viz., (i) the complaint was not lodged within twenty-four hours as contemplated under Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Amendment Act 26 of 2007), and (ii) the Special Court has taken cognizance directly without an order of committal as contemplated under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court had relied on its earlier decision in Shalini Steels Private Limited (supra) which itself was rendered based on the decision of this Court in Gangula Ashok (supra). The High Court, only on the ground that taking cognizance of the case by the Special Court is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor, has passed the impugned order, quashing the proceedings.
10. It is true that as per the procedure under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate except as otherwise expressly provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the time being in force. Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: “193. Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session:- Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.”
11. 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, we are of the view that Special Court is empowered to take cognizance without there being an order of committal as contemplated under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It appears that the High Court has not considered the said proviso to Section 151 and passed the impugned order. As the impugned order is passed only on the said ground, we are of the view that the order impugned is liable to be set aside by this Court.
12. Further, Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, has submitted that the complaint was not lodged SRI A.M.C.S. SWAMY ADE/DPE/HYD (CENTRAL) v. MEHDI AGAH KARBALAI [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.] within twenty-four hours as required under Section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and also submitted that the Court which has taken cognizance is not a Special Court within the meaning of the Electricity Act, 2003. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the date of disconnection as mentioned earlier as 12.11.2009 is not correct and that the power supply was disconnected only on 25.11.2009, as such, complaint was filed within the timeframe. Further, it is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that the Government vide G.O.Ms. No.118, Energy (Power-II) Department, dated 18.10.2003, notified the 1st Additional District Judge’s Court as a Special Court for the purpose of cases arising under the Electricity Act, 2003, as such, the Special Court is having competent jurisdiction.
13. The aforesaid both grounds raised by respondent No.1 cannot be accepted to sustain the impugned order. In view of the submission made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that the disconnection was within the specified time and further the Government has already issued notification notifying the 1st Additional District Judge’s Court as a Special Court, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2018 in Criminal Petition No.13678 of 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. We make it clear that we have not gone into merits of the matter and it is open for the trial Court to record its own findings based on the evidence during trial.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, with an observation as indicated above. Since the occurrence is of the year 2009, the trial court shall expedite the hearing of the case. Devika Gujal Appeal allowed.