THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4868 of 2011 ORDER: The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The complaint was filed against the accused for pilferage of the electricity and the petitioner is the 3rd accused. According to the case of the prosecution, the electricity officials inspected the business premises of the accused on 09.05.2010 and found pilferage of the electricity and there was said to be loss of Rs.5,92,555/- and consequently the accused was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 39, 44 and 49(a) of the Indian Electricity Act. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Hayathnagar and subsequently when the A.P. Electricity Act, 2003 came into force, in view of the constitution of the Special Court, the case was made over to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, which is the designated Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case having been filed prior to the amendment in 2003, the transfer of the case after the period of ten years to the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberbad is not valid. The present quash petition does not disclose as to what are the reasons for the case being pending for about ten years. There was no attribution of any latches on the part of the prosecution alone. The details are not furnished as to when the accused appeared and as to when the matter was proceeded with for trial. Therefore, the additional ground sought to be canvassed for quashing of the proceedings, the petitioner relied on decisions, reported in the case of Aloke Kumar Kundu v. State of W.B.[1] and also the case in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India[2], which have no application to the case on hand. It is to be noted that as per the amended Electricity Act, 2003, whenever after the constitution of the Special Court, all the cases pending before the concerned Magistrate, which are punishable for the offences under the above Act, shall be transferred to the concerned Special Court as per Section 154 (1) and (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as under: “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under sections 135 to 139 shall be triable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed. (2) Where it appears to any Court in the course of any inquiry or trial that an offence punishable under Sections 135 to 139 in respect of any offence that the case is one which is triable by a Special Court constituted under this Act for the area in which such case has arisen, it shall transfer such case to such Special Court, and thereupon such case shall be tried and disposed of by such Special Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in the case of Akula Narayana Flour Rice and Oil Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh[3], wherein this Court held that the amending Act has no retrospective effect and consequently the Court, which is competent to try is the Magistrate Court only. But, it is to be noted that the above judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner did not take into consideration the statutory provisions under the Act, whereunder it is mandatory that the cases shall be transferred to the Special Court constituted under the Act. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances when the Act itself provides for the transfer of the cases to the Special Court, the claim that the transfer is not valid, cannot be accepted. So far as the other contention that the amount was paid and it is compounded is concerned, it is a question of fact, which has to be determined by the Court. Therefore, for the above reasons, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad is directed to dispose of the case within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 01-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4868 of 2011 01-08-2011 MR [1] 2007 CRL.L.J. 3098 [2] AIR 1996 SC 1619 [3] 2003(1) ALT (Cri) 65