KASHIRAYAGOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 31.12.2005 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bijapur in Special Case (KPTCL) No. 7/2005 convicting the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(a)(b) of The Electricity Act, 2003 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,13,571/ - plus Rs. 11,087/ - and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for eight months, the accused/appellant has filed the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused contends that irrespective of the material evidence of the prosecution, the entire case is hit by section 135 of The Electricity Act. His case is that on 16.6.2004, the Officers of the Electricity Company came to the flourmill of the appellant and conducted a mahazar and found that he was illegally drawing electricity directly from the pole. On investigation, the charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(a)(b) of The Electricity Act, 2003.

(2.) RELIANCE was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused under section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as follows; 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.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri Sanjaya. Paitl, the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent contends that section 151 of The Electricity Act does not speak of a private complaint. It only states that the complaint should be in writing and made by the designated Officer. Admittedly, herein, the complaint is in writing by the designated officer and hence, these facts satisfy the requirements of section 151 of CPC. On the contrary the appellant's counsel further pleads that the subsequent proviso that has been added with effect from 15.6.2007, which states as follows; (Provided that the court may also take 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)