THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 153 of 2008 and 1959 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: 1. These Criminal Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in Special C.C. No.81 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.153 of 2008 is A.3 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1959 of 2008 is A.1, in the C.C. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 14.5.2001 at 9.00 PM, the Inspector of Police, A.P. Transco visited the factory premises of M/s. Rayalaseema Steel Re-rolling Mill, Nandigama village, Kothur mandal, Mahaboobnagar district, conducted a test of electrical equipment & meters and found that the meter was functioning normally. On 19.5.2001, when they conducted raid, they found tampering of meter, and so registered a case for the offences under Sections 39, 39(A) and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and after completion of investigation, laid the charge. 3. The charge sheet was taken on file for the offences under Section 39 as amended by Act 35 of 2000, and Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act against A.1, A.2 to A.4, and Section 39(A) as amended by Section 3 of the A.P. Amendment Act of the Indian Electricity Act against A.5 to A.8. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Petitions are filed by A.1 and A.3. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the charge sheet was laid before the Special Court constituted under Section 49D of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1910’), and thereafter the said case was transferred to the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, which was constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2003’); that, by virtue of G.O. Ms. No.118, Energy (Power.II), dated 18.10.2003, the Special Court constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 49D of the Act, 1910 shall cease to exist from the date of notification, and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge lacks inherent jurisdiction to try the case, and hence, continuation of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that, in G.O. Ms. No.118, Energy (Power.II), dated 18.10.2003, there is no transitional provision with regard to transfer of these cases to any other court or continuation of the cases in the Sessions Court till disposal of the cases. 6. It is not in dispute before this court that, originally, a Special Court was constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, after concurrence of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, under G.O. Ms. No.98, Energy (Power.II), dated 17.10.2000, and after constitution of that Court, charge sheet in this case was admittedly filed before the Special Court under the Indian Electricity (A.P. Amendment) Act, 2000, Hyderabad. The Chairman, Special Court under the Indian Electricity (A.P. Amendment) Act, 2000, Hyderabad, took cognizance of the case for the offences under Section 39 as amended by Act 35 of 2000, and Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act against A.1, A.2 to A.4, and Section 39(A) as amended by Section 3 of the A.P. Amendment Act of the Indian Electricity Act against A.5 to A.8, and issued processes to the accused. Admittedly, no cognizance of the case is taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act, 2003. The offences punishable under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act, 2003 are prospective, because any penal provision could not be applied retrospectively. Act, 2003 came into force with effect from 10.06.2003. Admittedly, the alleged incident in this case took place on 19.05.2001 7. In pursuance of the powers conferred under Section 153 of the Act, 2003, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, with the concurrence of the High Court, notified that the Court of an Additional District and Sessions Judge in each district, where there is only one court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, and the Court of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge in the districts where there are more than one court of Additional District and Sessions Judge and the 1st Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court at Hyderabad, as ‘Special Court’ to try the offences under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act, 2003. As seen from docket order dated 18.11.2003, this case was transferred from the Special Court constituted under Act, 2000 as per G.O. Ms. No.118, Energy (Power.II), dated 18.10.2003. 8. The Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Gazette dated 18.10.2003 reads thus: “In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act No.36 of 2003) the Government of Andhra Pradesh, with the concurrence of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, hereby notify that the court of an Additional District and Sessions Judge in each district, where there is only one court of Additional District and Sessions Judge and the court of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge in the districts where there are more than one court of Additional District and Sessions Judge and the 1st Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s court at Hyderabad as Special Court to try the offences under sections 135 to 139 of the aforesaid Act. 2. Under the powers conferred under Section 172(d) of the aforesaid Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby declare that the Special Courts constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 49-D of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as amended by the Indian Electricity (A.P. Amendment) Act, 2000 issued in the G.O. Ms. No.98, Energy (Power.II) Department, dated 17.10.2000 shall cease to exist from the date of issue of this Notification constituting the Special Courts under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that the decisions rendered by the Special Courts constituted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 are valid, under the General Clauses Act.” A perusal of the above Government Order does not show about transfer of cases from Courts constituted under Section 49-D of the Act, 1910 to the Courts constituted under Section 151 of the Act, 2003. It is also not in dispute that the Special Court constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 49D of the Act, 1910 as amended by the Indian Electricity (A.P. Amendment) Act, 2000 issued in G.O. Ms. No.98, Energy (Power.II), dated 17.10.2000, shall cease to exist from the date of issuance of the notification dated 18.10.2003. In the said Notification, there is no transitional or transfer provision with regard to transfer of cases taken cognizance by the Special Tribunal constituted under Section 49D of the Act, 1910 to the Special Court constituted under Section 153(1) of the Act, 2003. However, as per this notification, it is made clear that the decisions rendered by the Special Court constituted under the Act, 1910 are only saved. But, the Notification is silent with regard to the institution of cases pending before the Special Court. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge lacks inherent jurisdiction, because, it, being the Special Court constituted under Section 153(1) of the Act, 2003 by virtue the notification dated 18.10.2003, it has power to try the offences under Sections 135 to 139 of the Act, 2003. Government ought to have issued a Notification providing saving clause for transfer of cases taken cognizance by the Courts constituted under Section 49D of the Act, 1910 to the Court constituted under Section 153(1) of the Act, 2003, to try the offences. But, without dealing with the aspect of transfer of pending cases or not making any transitional provision, the notification was issued abolishing the Special Courts constituted under Section 49 D(1) of the Act, 1910. Nothing had been stated in the Notification dated 18.10.2003 with regard to the fate of cases which were taken cognizance by the Special Court constituted under Section 49D of the Act, 1910 or with regard to those cases transferred to the Courts constituted under Section 153(1) of the Act, 2003. Therefore, continuation of the impugned proceedings in Special C.C. No.81 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, against the petitioners herein insofar as the offences under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as amended by Act 35 of 2000 and 39A as amended by Section 3 of the A.P. Amendment Act of the Indian Electricity Act, is nothing but abuse of process of Court, because that court has no jurisdiction at all to try the abovementioned offences and it was constituted to try the offences under Sections 135 to 149 of the Act, 2003. 10. The Criminal Petitions are, accordingly, allowed, quashing the proceedings in Special C.C. No.81 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, against the petitioners insofar as the offences under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as amended by Act 35 of 2000 and 39A as amended by Section 3 of the A.P. Amendment Act of the Indian Electricity Act, against the petitioners/A.1 and A.3. ------------------- K.C.Bhanu, J. 15.10.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 153 of 2008 and 1959 of 2008 Date: 15.10.2009 Criminal Petition No.153 of 2008 Between: Indrakaran Agarwal …Petitioner/A.3 And State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another …Respondents Criminal Petition No.1959 of 2008 Between: Rayalaseema Steel Re-rolling Mill, Hyderabad …Petitioner/A.1 And State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU COMMON ORDER IN CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 153 of 2008 and 1959 of 2008 Date: 15.10.2009