Summary
Quashing of an electricity-theft prosecution for want of committal was reversed. The second proviso to section 151 of the Electricity Act expressly authorised the constituted Special Court to take cognizance directly, satisfying the statutory exception to section 193 CrPC. Objections about delayed complaint and the court’s notification did not sustain quashing on the material presented. The merits remained for an expedited trial.
Issues
- Whether a Special Court under the Electricity Act could take direct cognizance without committal.
- Whether the complaint-timing and court-designation objections sustained the quashing order.
Provisions considered
- Section 193, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Its committal requirement expressly yielded to a special statutory provision authorising original cognizance, as supplied by the Electricity Act. (¶ 10–11)
Held
- The second proviso to section 151 of the Electricity Act empowered a duly constituted Special Court to take cognizance without committal. The High Court erred by overlooking it and relying on precedent arising under a different enactment. (¶ 9–11)
- The utility explained that supply continued after meter replacement and was disconnected later, and identified the government notification constituting the court. The objections about twenty-four-hour compliance and designation did not justify retaining the quashing order. (¶ 12–13)
- No view was expressed on the prosecution’s merits; the trial court remained free to decide on the evidence. (¶ 14–15)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order quashing the prosecution set aside. Trial to be expedited, with merits left to the trial court.