Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 1049 Bom
Judgement Date : 27 March, 2017
J-cwp196.10.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.196 OF 2010
Dr. Anil Vinayakrao Golhar,
Aged 58 years,
Occupation : Medical Practitioner,
Resident of Plot No.256,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Sitabuldi, Nagpur. : RESPONDENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri U.A. Goasavi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri N.H. Joshi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th DATE : 27 MARCH, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutore for the respondent/State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the
complaint in this case has been filed on 12.12.2003 and the informant is
one Police Head Constable Bk.No.1478 and the informant is one Yanujala
S Rao, Deputy Executive Engineer of the M.S.E.B. He submits that the
J-cwp196.10.odt 2/4
cognizance of offence punishable under the provisions of the Electricity Act
can be taken only upon a complaint made in writing by an authorized
officer and as the complaint is distinct and different from the first
information report filed under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the whole action taken by the Police in this case is vitiated. In
support, he places his reliance upon the view taken by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in a series of cases. (i) in the cases of Godawari
Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Aurangabad vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 171, (ii)
Shakambari Industries, Akola and another vs. State of Maharashtra
and another, reported in 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 170 and (iii) Judgment of
Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.2088/2006, Vijay
Bhagwan Shetty vs. State of Maharashtra and another.
3. Learned A.P.P. has opposed this petition and submits that the
action taken by the Police in this case is correct.
4. Section 151 of the Electricity Act, in the year 2003 read as
under :
"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 authorised 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."
5. It is obvious that as per this Section, as it stood in the year
J-cwp196.10.odt 3/4
2003, no Court could have taken cognizance of an offence punishable
under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act except upon a complaint
in writing made by an Appropriate Government or Appropriate Committee
or any officer named specifically in this Section. Under Section 2(d) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure complaint has been defined to me an any
allegations made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his
taking action under the Code against a person who has committed an
offence and the complaint does not include a Police report. The Police
report is a report submitted by the investigating officer under Section 173
of the Code of Criminal Procedure on completion of the investigation and
this report is quite distinct from the complaint filed in terms of Section 200
read with Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore,
when Section 151 lays down that no Court of Judicial Magistrate shall take
cognizance of an offence punishable under the provisions of Indian
Electricity Act except upon a complaint filed by the authorized officer, it
clearly discloses the legislative intent that it should be a complaint as
defined under Section 2(d) of Criminal Procedure Code which excludes a
Police report. That is the reason why, in the case of Shakambari (supra)
the learned Single Judge took a view that in the absence of a complaint
made in writing by any authorized officer, no Court of Judicial Magistrate
would take cognizance of the offence punishable under the provisions of
the said Act and even if any charge-sheet is filed no cognizance of the
charge-sheet could be taken by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
J-cwp196.10.odt 4/4
Same view has been reiterated by the other learned Single Judges of this
Court in the cases of Vijay Bhagwan Shetty and Godawari Marathwada
Irrigation Development Corporation, Aurangabad (supra). It is a different
matter that considering this lacuna in Section 151 of the Electricity Act,
2003 an amendment was introduced with effect from 15.6.2007 and now
the amended Section allows a Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class to
take cognizance of offence even upon a report filed by the Police officer
under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code. But, as stated earlier, in
the instant case the incident has taken place and the FIR has been filed
before the said amendment was inserted.
6. In the circumstances, I find that there is no substance in the
argument of learned A.P.P. and there is merit in the argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner deserves to be discharged and
the proceedings also need to be quashed.
7. The writ petition stands allowed.
8. The petitioner stands discharged from the case and the
proceedings of the Regular Criminal Case No.43/2004 are hereby quashed
and set aside.
9. Rule is made absolute in these terms.
JUDGE okMksns
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!