THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No :2151 of 2009 DATED:09-12-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in S.C.No.39 of 2007 on the file of the learned Special Tribunal Judge for I.E.Act, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused records. 3. Based on a complaint given by Ch.Rambhotlu- L.W.1- Assistant Engineer, A.P.Transco, Vigilance & APTS, police registered a case in Cr.No.361 of 2000 against the petitioner herein-A2 and A1 and subsequently filed a charge sheet for the offences under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 before the Special Court, constituted for dealing with such cases. The learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of the same as S.C.No.39 of 2007. 4. According to the prosecution, on 17-08-2000 at about 1.30 p.m., the Assistant Engineer-L.W.1 along with L.Ws.2 to 4 inspected the premises of S.C.No.293 M/s Madhava Aqua Private Limited at Ramayapatnam village, Ulavapadu mandal, Prakasam District and found that the accused were indulging in theft of energy for aqua culture by directly tapping from the transformer LT outgoing cut outs with the help of copper PVC wires by making the meter idle. The Assistant Engineer drafted inspection note, seized the incriminating wires used for commission of the offence, assessed the loss sustained by the A.P.Transco at Rs.4,52,144 and lodged a complaint with the Inspector of police, Vigilance and APTS Nellore for launching prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that under Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), no Court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the appropriate Government or appropriate commission or any of the officer authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or Electrical Inspector or a licencee or the Generating Company, as the case may be, for this purpose. In that connection, he relies upon a decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.4333 of 2005, dated 24-08-2006, wherein also it is held that the complaint filed by the Inspector of police, Vigilance was not sustainable as it was not shown that the Inspector of police, Vigilance, APTS Nellore as one of the officers authorized to file such complaint. 6. It is not disputed that the amendment was brought out by Act 26 of 2007 with effect from 15-06-2007. Thereby proviso was added to Section 151 of the Act to the effect that the Court may also take cognizance of the offence punishable under this Act upon a report of the police officer filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 7. Section 151A of the Act was also introduced, wherein it is stated that for the purpose of investigation of an offence punishable under this Act, the police officer shall have all the powers as provided in chapter XII of Cr.P.C., 1973. The above amendments enabling the police officers to investigate and file charge sheet under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and enabling the Court to take cognizance of the offence based on such report of the police officer, came into force only with effect from 15-06-2007. In the present case, the offence is stated to have been committed on 17-08-2000. As per the provision, which is not existing prior to coming into force of the amendment, there was a bar against taking cognizance of the offence unless a complaint in writing is filed by appropriate Government or appropriate officer authorized for that purpose. 8. There is nothing on record to show that the Inspector of police, Vigilance, APTS, Nellore is authorized to investigate or file a charge sheet in respect of the offences under the Act. In the absence of any such authorization, taking cognizance by the Special Court based on the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of police is bad in law. 9. In the circumstances, it is held that the further proceedings against the petitioner-A2 in S.C.No.39 of 2007 on the file of the learned Special Tribunal Judge for I.E.Act, Ongole, Prakasam District are unsustainable and they are liable to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and they are accordingly quashed. 10. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 09th December, 2010. Tsy