IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5653 of 2010 RAJESH KUMAR OJHA @ RAJU OJHA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . ----------- 03 19/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner questions his prosecution in Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 2009 lodged on 13.5.2009, under Section 379 of the I.P.C. and 135, 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned counsel for the petitioner questions the institution of the prosecution as being without jurisdiction. He submits that under Section 151 of the Act cognizance cannot be taken except upon a complaint in writing made by an appropriate Government, an Officer authorised, Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector as the case may be. The institution of an F.I.R. by the Assistant Electrical Engineer was, therefore, without jurisdiction and no cognizance could be taken upon the same. He relies upon a Bench decision of this Court in 2009 (3) P.L.J.R. 767 (SATAYENDRA RAI @ SATYANDAR KUMAR RAI @ BAJRANG WALI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER) holding that the institution 2 of a Police Case No. 18 of 2007 on 24.1.2007 was without jurisdiction and only a complaint case was maintainable. Section 151 of the Act was amended by the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 (Act 26 of 2007) by Section 15 of the Amendment Act with effect from 15.6.2007. The amendment by insertion of a second proviso to Section 151 reads as follows:- 15. Amendment of Section 151.- In Section 151 of the principal Act, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:- “Provided that the court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided further that a special court constituted under Section 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.” That makes the judgment relied upon by the petitioner inapplicable on facts as it relates to a prosecution prior to the amendment. After the amendment a police case is also maintainable under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The conjoint effect of the provision as per amendment and after amendment is that both a complaint and a First Information Report are now maintainable after 15.6.2007. 3 This Court, therefore, finds no error in the institution of the prosecution warranting the interference with the order of cognizance. The application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)