IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1011 of 2008 (F) ------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/02/2008 IN CMP 2520/2007 IN CC.342/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR) .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ---------------------------------- K.C.PRASANTH, S/O. KORAN, AGED 47 YEARS, VINAYA VIHAR, PAYYAMBALAM, KANNUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SHO, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1011 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 20th day of September,2010 ORDER Petitioner the accused in C.C.342/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that Judicial First Class Magistrate could not have been taken cognizance on the final report filed under section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the decision of this Court in Paramasivam v. Union of India (2007(2) KLT 733). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the final report, taken cognizance by Crl.M.C.1011/2010 2 the Magistrate for the offences under section 379 IPC and Section 135 and 138 of Electricity Act, 2003, submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police under section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution case, as is clear from the final report, is that on 22.2.2005 at about 5.30 p.m the meter of consumer NO.3242 was found tampered with electricity stolen and thereby caused loss to the Kerala State Electricity Board and therefore committed the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 135 and 138 of Electricity Act, 2003. 4. Section 151A was introduced in the Electricity Act only with effect from 15.6.2007. Before 15.6.2007, as provided under section 151, learned Magistrate could have taken cognizance of the offence under the Act only on a complaint in writing made by an Officer authorised or a Chief Electrical Inspector or a Electrical Inspector as the case may be. As cognizance was taken not on a complaint but on a final report submitted by the Crl.M.C.1011/2010 3 Sub Inspector of Police under section 173(2), the cognizance taken for the offences under the Electricity Act can only be quashed. As held by a Single Bench of this court in Paramasivam's case (supra), an offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code is not at all attracted and therefore the cognizance taken for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. Cognizance taken for the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code in C.C.342/2005 is quashed. Cognizance taken for the offences under the Electricity Act is also quashed. But it is made clear that it will not a bar for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint filed by the competent officer in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006