IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3762 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- [CC.NO.4/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR, CRIME NO.171/2005 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION] .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- SUSHIL VIJOY ARORA, S/O KRISHNA VIJOY, FORMERLY MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARISHREE TECHNICALLY SPECIFIED BLOCK RUBBER (P) LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EDAYAR RUBBERS (P) LTD.,), V/793, DEVELOPMENT AREA, MUPPATHADOM P.O. EDAYAR-683 110. BY ADVS. SRI.A.ANTONY, SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL SECTION, EDAYAR, MUPPATHADOM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA, R2 BY P.P. THAJUDEEN, S.C, K.S.E.B. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.3762 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 1st October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.4/2010 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 135, 138 and 150 of Indian Electricity Act. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance on a final report submitted by the Magistrate as under Section 151 of Electricity Act cognizance could only be taken on a complaint filed by an officer as provided. It is also contended that the cognizance could not have been taken in view of the bar provided under Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner would also contend that Crmc 3762/10 2 he is only the landlord and building is in the exclusive occupation of the tenant and therefore, even if, there is a tampering of the meter by the tenant, landlord is not responsible. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Standing counsel appearing for Kerala State Electricity Board and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Though Section 151 of Electricity Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act, except upon a complaint in writing made by 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, Section 151 A was introduced in the Act w.e.f.15/6/2007. It provides that for the purpose of investigation Crmc 3762/10 3 of an offence punishable under the Act, police officer shall have all the powers as provided under Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence with effect from 15/6/2007, Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of the offence on a final report filed by the police officer. Therefore, on that ground, cognizance taken cannot be quashed. 4. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that petitioner is only a landlord and when is not in occupation of the building he cannot be prosecuted, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, relying on clauses 19 and 21 of the Agreement for Service Connection, which cast liability on the consumer as well as a duty on him to intimate the transfer or ownership of the right and occupancy of the premises, argued that petitioner is liable to be Crmc 3762/10 4 prosecuted. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that intimation of transfer of occupancy was given to the K.S.E.B. But there is no material before me to decide this dispute. 5. So also though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the bar provided under Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure the cognizance taken is bad, Section 473 enables the Court to take cognizance beyond the period in the interest of justice. Hence it is not for this Court to quash the proceedings exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction as sought for. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions raised herein and seek an order of discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also argued that as company was not Crmc 3762/10 5 made an accused, petitioner alone cannot be prosecuted. Petitioner is also entitled to raise the said contention before the learned Magistrate. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.