M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Com. vs Raju

D.K. Paliwal, J.—Heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.02.2009 passed by Special Judge (Electricity) Bhind in Special Case No. 56/2005, whereby earlier order of framing of charge u/s 135 of Electricity Act, 2005, has been re-called.

The brief facts of the petition are that petitioner/company has inspected the premises of respondent on 22.04.2005 and found using of electricity directly from the electricity line. The petitioner company has prepared panchanama on the spot and interim assessment order of Rs. 29,277/- alongwith compounding charges was issued to the respondent. But respondent has not deposited the same nor has raised any objection.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner/company has filed the Special Case before the Special Court, Bhind u/s 135 of Electricity Act, which was registered as Special Case No. 56/2005 wherein accused denied the charges and trial Court has fixed the case for evidence. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile Presiding Officer has been transferred and new Presiding Officer has taken over the charge and the Presiding Officer by the impugned order has recalled the earlier order of framing of charge and fixed the case for evidence before charge. The impugned order is against the law and deserves to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the trial Court has wrongly observed and fixed the case for evidence before charge by over looking the provision of Section 154(3) of Indian Electricity Act, wherein summary procedure is provided. It is further submitted that the provision of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has also been ignored.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order has been passed with the consent of the petitioner, therefore, there is no illegality in passing the order impugned.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

Before proceedings further, it would be appropriate to refer the provision of Section 154(3) of Indian Electricity Act.

154(3) The Special Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 260 or section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), try the offence referred to in sections 135 to 139 in a summary way in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the said Code and the provisions of sections 263 to 265 of the said Code shall, so far as may be apply to such trial:

Provided that where in the course of a summary trial under this sub section, it appears to the Special Court that the nature of the case is such that it is undesirable to try such case in summary way, the Special Court shall recall any witness who may have been examined and proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by the provisions of the said Code for the trial of such offence.

In the light of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that the Special court may try the offence referred in section 135 to 139 in summary way. Thus it is not necessary to examine the complainant and witnesses before framing of the charge. Once the charge is framed by the Court it is not permissible to recall the same. The provision of Section 154(3) of Indian Electricity Act does not permit the Court to recall the order of framing of charge. In my opinion, learned Special Judge has committed illegality in recalling the earlier order by which charge has been framed.

Accordingly, petition is allowed, impugned order dated 24.02.2009, passed in Special Case No. 56/2005 is set aside. Trial Court is directed to proceed further as per the charge framed earlier. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.