THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2064 of 2006 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.2/2005 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for trying Electricity Offences, Srikakulam, for the offences under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the second respondent-Station House Officer, (FAC) Vigilance and A.P.T.S., Srikakulam is not the competent authority to investigate into the said offences and file a charge sheet in view of Section 151 of the Act, which prohibits taking cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act, except upon a complaint in writing made by appropriate commission or any of their officers authorized by them. He also contended that the second respondent is only empowered to receive the complaint when the concerned Magistrate commits a crime under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He further contended that Section 151 of the Act does not prescribe filing of the charge sheet as is being done in the case of I.P.C offences and that only the concerned officers mentioned in Section 151 of the Act alone are empowered to file a private complaint before the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trying Electricity Offences. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. Though no ground was taken by the learned counsel in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, he argued across the Bar that unless the case is committed by the Magistrate, a Special Court cannot receive the charge sheet directly, number it and take cognizance of the same. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that this Court in Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2010, dated 16.04.2010, held that the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & APTS APCPDCL, Medak, cannot be taken cognizance, since he is not one of those officers as specified in Section 151 of the Act as on the date when the offence was committed. The learned Public Prosecutor also contended that the Special Court cannot take cognizance of the offence, and in support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in Referring Officer, rep. By State of A.P v. Accused in Crime No.197/95, Police Station, Khammam and others[1]. Section 151 of the Act prohibits taking cognisance 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 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. Admittedly, in the instant case, when the offences have been committed, the second respondent-Station House Officer, (FAC) Vigilance and A.P.T.S., Srikakulam was not an authorised officer to investigate into the said offences. Section 151-A was inserted by Act 26 of 2007 and the same has come into force with effect from 15.06.2007, whereby even police officers are conferred with the power to investigate into the said offences. In the instant case, the offences are alleged to have been committed on 23.12.2004 i.e., much prior to the insertion of Section 151-A of the Act. Therefore, the second respondent is not competent to investigate and file charge sheet. Further, the learned Special Court cannot take cognisance of the offence, unless the case is committed by the Magistrate. In view of the same, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same are accordingly quashed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 29.07.2010 va [1] 1999 CRI.L.J. 4173