ORDER
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. Alleging that petitioners pilfered energy, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance, and A.P.T.C., Sangareddy, Medak District registered a case in Crime No. 54 of 1995 under Sections 39, 44, and 49A of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the petitioners in the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy. The learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act.
3. Subsequently, as per the State amendment to Indian Electricity Act, punishment for pilferage of energy was enhanced and Special Tribunals were constituted to try the offences under Electricity Act. Additional District and Sessions Judges were constituted as Special Tribunals under the Electricity Act. After the constitution of the Special Tribunal, the case against the petitioners, which was pending on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, was transferred to the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (Special Tribunal constituted under the Indian Electricity Act) and the same is numbered as C.C. No. 24 of 2000.
4. Contending that the amending Act has no retrospective operation and so the case against them has to be tried only by the Magistrate, petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No. 269 of 2002 before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CH. PRABHAKAR AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF A.P. 2001(4) A.L.D. 452 (D.B.). Holding that the said decision has no application to the facts of this case inasmuch as four witnesses were examined therein and that not even one witness is examined in this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said petition by his order dated 3-10-2002. Hence this petition to transfer the case from the Special Tribunal to the Magistrate Court.
5. In CH. PRABHAKAR case (1 supra) it is held that penal provisions in an Act do not have retrospective operation and so cases registered before the amendment of Electricity Act have to be tried only by the concerned Magistrate. Since the offence in this case is said to have been committed in 1995, the amendment made in 2000 to the Electricity Act does not and cannot apply to the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners. Therefore in view of the ratio in CH. PRABHAKAR case (1 supra), the case against the petitioners need not be tried by the Special Court and can be tried by a Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in holding that CH. PRABHAKAR case (1 supra) has no application to this case because in that case four witnesses were examined and in this case no witnesses were examined. Examination of witnesses is not the criterian to find out if the case has to be tried by a Magistrate or the Special Court. Since offences committed prior to the amendment to Electricity Act need not be tried by Special Tribunal, they can be tried by a Magistrate. Since trial commences with framing of charges and since in this case charges were already framed by the Magistrate, the case can be tried by the Magistrate and not necessarily by the Special Tribunal
6. Therefore the petition is allowed and the C.C. No. 24 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy is withdrawn from that Court and is transferred to the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy for disposal according to law.