Professional Documents
Culture Documents
+ CRL.M.C. 4371/2005
versus
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
judgment? Yes
2. The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for
petitioner it was found that the petitioner had indulged in the theft of
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (now, Section 135 of the Electricity Act
2003) read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The inspection was
carried on 21st April, 2004 and the complaint was lodged with the police on
estimated loss of energy due to the theft of electricity detected during the
(„Electricity Act‟ for short) which repealed the Indian Electricity Act, 1910
as well as Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000, no power was left with the
offences specified under Section 135 to 138, which are pari materia to
151 of the Electricity Act. Opposing the petition the 2 nd respondent relied
136 (2007) DLT 521, wherein it has been held that there is no provision in
the Electricity Act, 2003 to suggest that cases of theft of electricity cannot
originate from an FIR. The learned single Judge, however, observed that
in Bimla Gupta’s case(supra), the Court has relied upon the judgment of
this Court in Sohan Lal Vs. North Delhi Power Limited & Ors.,
reported in 113 (2004) DLT 547 rendered by Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., which
view has been differed by another single Judge S. Ravindra Bhat, J. in Raj
Kumar Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Limited, W.P. (C) No. 18912/2006
reference was made to the Electricity Rules, 2005 which had not come into
force when the FIR in the present case was registered and, therefore, the
learned single Judge opined that the correctness of the judgment delivered
manner that has been provided under the said Act. This provision
under this Act except upon a complaint, whereas in the instant case
Section 154 of the Electricity Act also prescribes the manner and mode in
which the action will be taken upon the complaint and it starts with non-
criminal cases under the Cr. P.C. is barred. He argued that under Section
151 of the Electricity Act, power of police to investigate a case has been
taken away and, therefore, no FIR could be lodged, more so when the
legislature in its wisdom has laid down specific procedure in the said Act
prescribed in the law. The counsel also submitted that the DERC
Regulations, for short) which enabled lodging of a report with the local
Kumar’s case (supra) has raised doubt about the correctness of the
decision in Sohan Lal’s case(supra) wherein it has been held that the
the Court was concerned with the Electricity Rules, 2005 which were not in
force at the relevant time when the FIR was registered in the present
case.
the Enforcement Team it was revealed that the petitioner was indulging in
who are responsible for the said theft and to take appropriate proceedings
under the law. He submitted that nothing has been specified under the
Electricity Act, which makes the said offence non-cognizable. Since the
cognizable offence or not, the Cr.P.C. needs to be relied upon for the said
register a FIR and investigate the same. He submitted that Section 151 of
the Electricity Act does not create a bar on registration of the FIR and
submitted that the matter was at the investigation stage, when the
maintained that the Sohan Lal’s case(supra) has been correctly decided
but in this case since the only limited issue is about the registration of the
FIR in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C., this Court need not
present case.
first take note of the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act, which are
Sections 135, 138, 151, 154, 155 and 175 and they read as follows:-
description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with
both. Section 138 makes the interference with meters or works of licensee
which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten
with a daily fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. Section 151 of
the Act states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable
licensee or the generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose.
Section 154 of the Act opens with a non-obstante clause and provides that
every offence punishable under Sections 135 to 139 shall be triable only by
the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been
the Special Court may try the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 139 in
and the provisions of Sections 263 to 265 of the Code shall, so far as may
be, apply to such trial. Section 155 of the Act provides that save as
are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act shall apply to the Special
Court and for the purpose of the said enactments the Special Court shall
Session and the person conducting a prosecution before the Special Court
provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other
7. Coming then to the provision of the Cr.P.C., it is seen that the code
demarcates the offences into two categories, viz. cognizable and non-
given to an officer in-charge of a police station, who shall reduce the same
into writing. Thus, it is the duty and responsibility of the police authorities
the Cr.P.C. would be applicable where an offence under the IPC or under
any other law is being investigated, inquired into, tried or otherwise dealt
with. The provisions of the Cr.P.C. would apply to offences under any
other law, such as the Electricity Act and can also be investigated, inquired
into or tried with in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C., except in
different than the procedure prescribed under Cr.P.C. The Electricity Act
does not contain any provision which stipulates a separate procedure for
the offences under the said Act. In fact, Section 155 of the Act
specifically provides that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall apply to the
proceedings before the Special Court insofar as they are not inconsistent
with the provisions of the Act. Section 154(3) indicates that the trial
263 to 265 of the Code shall so far as may be applied to such trial.
Section 175 makes it clear that the provisions of the Act are in addition
and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.
the Act comes into operation at the stage when the court intends to take
cognizance of offences under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act, and it has
respondent to lodge a FIR and for the police authorities to investigate the
same in accordance with law. Section 151 of the Electricity Act enables
does not mean that other avenues for investigation which are available are
excluded, since no such special procedure for trying the offences under
the Electricity Act is provided and cases under Electricity Act are also
appearing for the petitioner that the police cannot investigate into the FIR
rejected.
was that since the case fell under Section 195 Cr.P.C., it was the
provisions of Chapter XXVI Cr.P.C. which would apply and not that of
Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was submitted that in such a case the
Court, but by not following the procedure laid down under Chapter XXVI of
the CrPC. It was urged that if an application had been made to the court
and the court had taken a decision, then under Section 341 Cr.P.C. an
appeal could have been filed. By making a complaint to the police, who
would then make a report to a court and the court would take cognizance,
complaint was made to the police against the petitioner therein under
Section 466-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 alleging that
Section 332 read with Section 461 of the Act and proceeded to frame
objection that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not have the
been filed before the Court by any officer of the Corporation authorized by
the Commissioner in that behalf. It was argued that under Section 467 of
the Act no court can proceed to the trial of any offence under Section 332
him, the Metropolitan Magistrate ought not to have proceeded with the
trial of the case on a police report. Rejecting this argument, Anil Dev
12. In the case of Bimla Gupta (supra), A.K. Sikri, J. had considered
13. The SLP preferred against the decision in Bimla Gupta was
Electricity Rules of 2005 and the Regulations of 2002, validity of which has
(Crl.M.C. 4371/2005) Page 23 of 24
been upheld by Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J in Sohan Lal’s case(supra).
2002. The Rules of 2005 are obviously inapplicable in the facts of the
14. In our opinion, Bimla Gupta’s case(supra) lays down the correct
position of law and does not require any reconsideration. In that view of
the matter, we need not express any opinion on the points raised by the
learned single Judge in his referring order. The only other contention
raised in this petition is that the inspection was not carried by the
do not see any reason to entertain the present petition and the same is
hereby dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MARCH 24, 2009
VKR/nm