TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the proviso inserted in Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by Act 26 of 2007, permitting cognizance on a police report, was clarificatory and applicable to pending matters. (ii) Whether an FIR and police investigation for theft of electricity could be sustained and culminate in cognizance by the criminal court in view of Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether the proviso inserted in Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by Act 26 of 2007, permitting cognizance on a police report, was clarificatory and applicable to pending matters.
Analysis: The amendment to Section 151 was introduced to remove the perceived barrier to police investigation of cognizable offences under the Electricity Act, 2003 and to facilitate trial before the special court. The Statement of Objects and Reasons indicated that the change was intended to clarify that police could investigate such offences. On that basis, the provision was treated as clarificatory rather than substantive, so its operation extended to pending matters.
Conclusion: Yes. The proviso was held to be clarificatory and applicable retrospectively.
Issue (ii): Whether an FIR and police investigation for theft of electricity could be sustained and culminate in cognizance by the criminal court in view of Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was treated as a cognizable offence. The Court also relied on the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which offences punishable with imprisonment of three years and upwards but not more than seven years are cognizable. Consequently, the police could investigate the matter and submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on which the criminal court could take cognizance.
Conclusion: Yes. The FIR and police report were held to be maintainable and capable of supporting cognizance.
Final Conclusion: The order quashing the FIR was set aside, and the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was dismissed, recognizing the validity of police investigation and cognizance on the police report in electricity theft cases.
Ratio Decidendi: A clarificatory amendment removing a procedural obstacle to investigation of a cognizable offence operates retrospectively, and where the offence is cognizable, a police report may form the basis of cognizance by the criminal court.
TaxTMI 
