1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 256 OF 2010 Kishor Madhukar Patil .. Applicant Versus The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Through Dy. Executive Engineer. .. Respondent Shri Surendra V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Applicant. CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 07TH OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : . This revision is filed against the order passed by the Special Judge, Jalgaon on the applicant’s application seeking discharge from the Special Case No. 29 of 2009. 2. The facts leading to the impugned order are as under : On 24 th October, 2007, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., through its employee one Laxman Bhortakke filed a complaint against the applicant before the 2 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pachora. The applicant was accused of committing offices punishable 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act 2003 (for short the “Act”). 3. Without mentioning the details of the complaint, it is suffice to say that the allegations made in the complaint are sufficient to draw a conclusion that the complaint was maintainable. The learned Magistrate then issued process and thereafter, the applicant appeared before the Court. Thereafter, on 06 th November, 2009, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Jalgaon. From there it seems, it was sent to the Special Court constituted U/Sec. 153 of the Act. On committal of the case to the Special Court, the applicant made an application seeking discharge from the case on the ground that the complainant had no authority to lodge the complaint and on such complaint the Court could not have taken the cognizance in view of Sec. 151 of the Act. The Sec. 151 reads as under : 151. 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 or any of their officer authorized 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 3 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.] 4. Admittedly, this is a complaint lodged by the licensee company. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant asserted that the complainant Shri Bhortakke did not have proper authority of the Managing Director of the Company and so he could not have lodged the complaint and if such complaint is lodged, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the same. He urged me to look into the record as to whether Shri Bhortakke was properly authorized to lodged the complaint in order to do so, he invited my attention to a document which the complainant himself had filed along with the complaint. A copy of which is at Exhibit – C to the application. This document refers to certain resolution passed by the complainant Company in respect of authorizing it’s officers for filing written complaints for the offences punishable under various provisions of the Act. The Managing Director has signed this document. In this document it is stated that complaints in 4 respect of offence punishable U/Sec. 135 and 138 of the Act can be lodged by various officers working in various sections and wings. 5. In case of officers of 'Flying Squad', the authority to lodge complaints is given to Junior Engineer and above. In the present case, Shri Bhortakke is a Deputy Executive Engineer and is therefore, above the rank of Junior Engineer. He is therefore, clearly given authority to lodge a complaint of this nature. In view of this the order passed by the learned Special Judge does not require any interference. The reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Vijay Bhagwan Shetty Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2009 All MR (Cri) 1347, is inapplicable on facts. 6. The applicant, it seems, in over enthusiasm also made a statement in the application that the learned Special Judge has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this case, because the Court is not constituted and appointed by the State Government U/Sec. 153 of the Act by issuing notification in official Gazette. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant admitted that the statement is incorrect and is based on his conclusion which he drew from the wordings of the order of committal passed by the 5 learned Magistrate. On perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate, I find nothing therein to draw a conclusion that the Special Court has been constituted without issuance of notification U/Sec. 153 of the Act. The statement made in the application thus is erroneous and the applicant and his advocate should have avoided to make such statement. In view of this the revision application stands dismissed. [A. V. NIRGUDE, J.] bsb/Oct. 10/ok