IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 95 of 2006(B) ------------------------ CC.773/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,KOYILANDY .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- 1. BABU, S/O. VASU, CHELLATTAM VEETTIL, KUMARASWAMI ROAD, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE. 2. KANARAKUTTY, S/O. KORAPPAN, KAMBURATH HOUSE, MAKKADA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. SIVAN, S/O. KANARAKUTTY, KAMBURATH HOUSE, MAKKADA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. THE S I OF POLICE, ELATHUR POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.95 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.773/2005 in which cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. 2. The petitioners had come to this court complaining that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate offends the provisions of Section 151 of the Electricity Act 2003 as explained in Paramasivam v. Union of India [2007(2) KLT 733]. The petitioners in these circumstances pray in this Crl.M.C that cognizance taken against them may now be quashed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though there is a technical flow, that technical flow in that cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report filed by the police, that flow does not any more exist as Section 151 of the Electricity Act 2003 has been amended to incorporate the proviso which reads as follows: “Cognizance of offences.- No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate Government or Appropriate Commission Crl.M.C.No.95/06 2 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. 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:” 4. This proviso has been included as per Act 26 of 2007 with effect from 15/6/2007. Even if this court were to direct return of the complaint now, on the next day the final report can be refiled and cognizance will be taken by the learned Magistrate. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is not necessary to resort to that course and unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. Notwithstanding the fact that cognizance was taken at a time when the proviso extracted above was not in the statute book, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C now to quash the proceedings initiated. The learned Magistrate can reckon for all purposes that cognizance has been taken on 15/6/2007. 5. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.95/06 3 Crl.M.C.No.95/06 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008