ANIL KUMAR BHUNIYA Vs. STATE OF WEST BANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19-2.05 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court, Midnapore (West) under Indian Electricity Act (in short I.E. Act) in connection with I.E. Act Case No.231/04 arising out of Daspur P.S. Case No. 127/96 for alleged offence punishable under section 39 of the I.E. Act, 1910 read with section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and praying for direction that the said case should be tried by competent Magistrate.

(2.) Mr. Arup Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that initially the case was started against this petitioner in the year 1996 under section 39 of the then Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (since repealed) read with section 379 of the IPC arising out of Daspur P.S. Case No. 127 dated 24.4.96. In the said case one witness was examined before the new Electricity Act, 2003 came into force w.e.f. 15.7.02. According to section 154 of the new Act, the offences as mentioned in sections 135 to 139 of the Act of 2003 are triable by the Special Court. Against the accused charge was framed under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act read with section 379 of the IPC. The accused petitioner, therefore, cannot be tried for any offence under sections 135 to 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

(3.) Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that the point of law involved in this matter is, whether Special Court or, the learned Special Judge has jurisdiction to try the case when the offence occurred in 1996 under section 39 of the Indian Electricity. Act, 1910. When charge was already framed under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and one witness was examined before promulgation of the new Electricity Act, 2003, the accused petitioner cannot be tried by the Special Court. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will not cure the defect. The learned Special Court has wrongly interpreted section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The right of the accused petitioner to be tried by the Magistrate for his alleged offence in 1996 when Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was in force cannot be curtailed by application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act. It is the settled principle of law that every procedural law has retrospective effect unless there is any special indication in the Act laying down when the said Act would become effective or that the new Act has prospective effect. The accused did not commit any offence under sections 135 to 139 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the said Act came into force w.e.f. 15.7.02, He, therefore, cannot be tried for any of the offences under the aforesaid sections of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the learned Special Judge. The accused is entitled to be tried under the provisions of old Electricity Act of 1910 and he should be tried by a Magistrate. In support of his contention Mr. Chatterjee cited the decision in Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh, reported in 1990 SCC(Cri) 151.