JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. These two cases are raising identical question of law and were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of brevity, facts of Crl.M. No. 1760/2006 are noted.
2. Respondent No. 2, North Delhi Power Limited (in short the ‘NDPL’) has lodged FIR No. 52/2006 against the petitioner herein under Section 135/138 of the Electricity Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged therein that a technical inspection was conducted at premises No. A-11, Keshav Puram Industrial Area, Delhi, by an authorised inspection team of the complainant when it was found that Sh. Dinesh Gupta (husband of the petitioner) had indulged in theft of electricity. The connected load at the time of inspection was found to be 70.560 KW and Sh. Dinesh Gupta was found to be utilising stolen electricity for industrial purpose. As per the FIR, the inspection team found the following discrepancies:
(a) meter found installed in old separate type CT and meter MS box; (b) a deliberately created gaps/cavities found in between the window meter glass and meter body at the upper right side through which a thin plastic film can be inserted for manipulating the recorded consumption; (c) meter window glass also found damaged on upper right corner as well as on the right side and also meter window glass found loses; (d) scratches were also observed on meter disc the accused Dinesh Gupta was found to be utilizing the stolen electricity by using the tampered meter which was (not legible) or proper registration is stolen. The accused Dinesh Gupta maliciously injured the meter that belongs to NDPL with his mala fide intention to steal the electricity provided by the NDPL.
3. The petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid premises where her husband Dinesh Gupta is doing the business of Daal Mill under the name and style of M/s. Ajanta Food Industries. There are four electric connection installed at the aforesaid premises as per the following details:
(i)K. No. 32103131842 in the name of Ajanta Food Industries;
(ii)K. No. 32105004504 in the name of M.G. Polyblends;
(iii)K. No. 321006015972 in the name of Dinesh Chandra & Rakesh Chandra;
(iv)K. No. 32100136593 in the name of Ajanta Plyflex.
4. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and it is stated that not only the said FIR is bad in law as provisions of Section 135/138 are per se not attracted, it is an act of mala fide also and without any authority of law.
5. Needless to mention that at this stage in these proceedings it is not the domain of this Court to go into the disputes questions and the factum of alleged theft etc. These are the matters of evidence which are thrashed out at the stage of trial. Conscious of this very position, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued the matter only on legal platform. His submission was that Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 is a complete Code and proceedings are to be filed only under this Act alone. Section 135 of the said Act completely bars initiation of proceedings in any other manner, except in the manner that has been provided under the Act. This provision provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint whereas in the instant case instead of filing complaint, FIR was lodged invoking the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure which is not permissible. In support of his submission that the Electricity Act 2003 is a complete Code so far as the matters concerning electricity are concerned, he argued that the penalties of the offence provided under this Act would be deemed to be statutory one. They are, therefore, to be dealt with under the statutory provisions of this Act. Section 154 of the Act also prescribes the manner and mode in which the action will be taken upon the complaints and it starts with non-obstente clause meaning thereby the procedure as applicable in other criminal cases under the Cr.P.C. is barred. He also argued that under Section 151 of the Electricity Act, power of police to investigate the case has been taken away and, therefore, no FIR could be lodged, more so when the legislature in its wisdom has laid down specific procedure in the Electricity Act and only that procedure had to be followed for taking cognizance of offences prescribed under this Act and no other mode is prescribed in the law. He also submitted that the interpretation of the statute has to be in the manner as to achieve the purposes of the Act and no interpretation could be given which would make the provisions of this Act nugatory or otiose. The golden principle of interpretation is that if a particular mode is being prescribed, then all other modes will be deemed to be taken away or would be deemed to be excluded. He buttressed his submission by pointing out that even the trial is given to a Special Judge with the intention to achieve the object of the Act. He also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dayal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. on the proposition that what cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. He also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vemareddy Kumarswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. which is to the effect that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, then the same is to be literally interpreted without adding anything. In such a situation the Courts were not to re-write the statute as held in M. Ahammedkutty Haji v. Tahsildar, Kozhikode, Kerala and Ors. .
6. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/NDPL, on the other hand, submitted that during a surprise check conducted by the Enforcement Team of the NDPL it was found that the meter had been tampered with and consequent theft of electricity and dishonest abstraction of energy was a deliberate act on the part of the consumer with the mala fide intention of abstracting and consuming electricity without being recorded in their meter. It amounted to theft/dishonest abstraction of energy. Such an offence of theft is punishable with three years of imprisonment besides fine and thus, was a cognizable offence. Since a cognizable offence was committed, it was permissible for NDPL to lodge an FIR and for the police authorities to investigate the same in accordance with law so as to ascertain the persons who are responsible for the said theft and to take appropriate proceedings under the law. He also argued that nothing had been specified under the Electricity Act which makes the said offence non-cognizable. Since the statute was silent on this aspect as to whether theft of electricity is a cognizable offence or not, the Code of Criminal Procedure needs to be relied upon for the said purpose. He also pointed out that in respect of every offence which is cognizable, it is the duty and responsibility of the police authorities to register an FIR and investigate the same. He also submitted that even as per Section 151 of the Electricity Act, there was no bar on registration of the FIR and investigation of the case by the police authorities. The bar, if any, is on the Court to take cognizance of a case without there being a complaint by the competent person which stage has not reached as of today. The matter was at the investigation stage. He also referred to notification dated 8.6.2005 issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 176 of the Electricity Act which clearly enabled the police to investigate the complaint lodged by the licensee or a generating company, as the case may be.
7. In order to appreciate the respective contentions, it would be essential to first take note of the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The four provisions of the Electricity Act which are referred to are Sections 135, 138, 151 and 154 and these may be reproduced at this stage:
135. Theft of electricity.–(1) Whoever, dishonestly,-
(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity,
so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both:
Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use-
(i)does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity;
(ii)exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity:
Provided further than if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorised by the Board or licensee exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.
(2) Any office authorised in this behalf by the State Government may-
(a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity [has been or is being], used unauthorisedly;
(b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which [has been or is being], used for unauthorised use of electricity;
(c) examine or seize any books of accounts or documents which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under Sub-section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts there from in his presence.
(3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list:
Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic place or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises.
(4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under this act.
xxxxx
138. Interference with meters or works of licensee.-(1) Whoever,
(a) unauthorisedly connects any meter, indicator or apparatus with any electric line through which electricity is supplied by a licensee or disconnects the same from any such electric line; or
(b) unauthorisedly reconnects any meter, indicator or apparatus with any electric line or other works being the property of a licensee when the said electric line or other works has or have been cut or disconnected; or
(c) lays or causes to be laid, or connects up any works for the purpose of communicating with any other works belonging to a licensee; pr
(d) maliciously injures any meter, indicator, or apparatus belonging to a licensee or willfully or fraudulently alters the index of any such meter, indicator or apparatus or prevents any such meter, indicator or apparatus from duly registering;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both, and, in the case of a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; and if it is proved that any means exist for making such connection as is referred to in Clause (a) or such re-connection as is referred to in Clause (b), or such communication as is referred to in Clause (c), for causing such alteration or prevention as is referred to in Clause (d), and that the meter, indicator or apparatus is under the custody or control of the consumer, whether it is his property or not, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such connection, reconnection, communication, alteration, prevention or improper use, as the case may be, has been knowingly and willfully caused by such consumer.
xxxxx
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.
xxxxx
154. Procedure and power of Special Court.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under Sections 135 to 139 shall be friable only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction such offence has been committed.
(2) Where it appears to any court in the course of any inquiry or trial that an offence punishable under Sections 135 to 139 in respect of any offence that the case is one which is friable by a Special Court constituted under this Act for the area in which such case has arisen, it shall transfer such case to such Special Court, and thereupon such case shall be tried and disposed of by such Special Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Provided that it shall be lawful for such Special Court to act on the evidence, if any, recorded by any court in the case of presence of the accused before the transfer of the case of any Special Court:
Provided further that is such Special Court is of opinion that further examination, cross-examination and re-examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded, is in the interest of justice, it may re-summon any such witness and after such further examination, cross-examination and re-examination, if any, as it may permit, the witness shall be discharged.
(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:
Provided further that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for a Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(4) A Special Court may, with a view to obtaining ;the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to, any offence tender pardon to such person or condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof, and any pardon so tendered shall, for the purposes of Section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be deemed to have been tendered under Section 307 thereof.
(5) The Special Court may determine the civil liability against a consumer or a person in terms of money for theft of energy which shall not be less than an amount equivalent to two times of the tariff rate applicable for a period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft of energy or the exact period of theft if determined whichever is less and the amount of civil liability so determined shall be recovered as if it were a decree of civil court.
(6) In case the civil liability so determined finally by the Special Court is less than the amount deposited by the consumer or the person, the excess amount so deposited by the consumer or the person, to the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be refunded by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order of the Special Court together with interest at the prevailing Reserve Bank of India prime lending rate for the period from the date of such deposit till the date of payment.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, “civil liability” means loss or damage incurred by the Board or licensee or the concerned person, as the case may be, due to the commission of an offence referred to in Sections 135 to 139.
8. It is clear that Section 135 speaks about the manner in which the cases of dishonest abstraction of energy have to be dealt with. Likewise, Section 138 also deals with the theft of electricity. Whenever a person is found to have committed offence under Section 135 and/or Section 138, cognizance thereof can be taken by the Court as provided under Section 151 thereof. Section 151 prescribes that Court shall not take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act (which would include Section 135/138) except upon a complaint in writing made by a person specified therein. A complaint can be filed before the Court as provided under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. On filing such a complaint procedure that is mentioned in the Sections following Section 200 is to be followed by the concerned Court. The question for consideration is as to whether lodging of the FIR for such an offence is prohibited and filing of the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is the only mode which is to be followed? Related question which would call for consideration would be as to whether provisions of Section 379 IPC relating to theft cannot be added/invoked at all and for theft of electricity/dishonest abstraction of energy, only the provisions of Section 135 or 138 of the Electricity Act can be invoked?
9. Before we answer these questions, let us take stock of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as highlighted by the learned senior counsel for the NDPL. The Code of Criminal Procedure demarcates the offences into two categories, namely, cognizable and non-cognizable offences. As per Part II of Schedule I of the Code, any offence punishable with three years or more of imprisonment is a cognizable offence. Section 154 of the Code prescribes that in respect of every offence which is a cognizable one, information thereof is to be given to an officer in-charge of a police station, who shall reduce the same into writing. Thus, it is the duty and responsibility of the police authorities to register a First Information Report. Sub-section (3) of Section 154 further obligates the police authorities to investigate the same as per the manner prescribed in subsequent sections and thereafter submit its report to the Magistrate, who is empowered to take cognizance of the offence on police report, under Section 173 of the Code, on completion of investigation. Interpreting the aforesaid provision this Court in the case of Deepa Singh v. State 1998 IV AD (Delhi) 492 held that mode of registration of the FIR was permissible. That was a case relating to the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Violation of Sections 332 and 466-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation was alleged. The Court held that ordinary Criminal Courts under Section 5 of the Act will have the jurisdiction to deal with such offences and the plea of ouster of jurisdiction of the ordinary Criminal Courts was rejected. It may be noted that Section 467 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act is para meteria with Section 151 of the Electricity Act as that provision also lays down that no Court can proceed to the trial of any offence under Section 332 of the Act except a complaint of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi or any other person authorised by him by general or special order in this behalf. Argument was precisely the same, namely, no complaint had been filed by the Commissioner or any person authorised by him and FIR was lodged with the police and which submitted the report to the MM and, therefore, the MM in the absence of complaint ought not to have proceeded with the trial of the case on a police report. The Court while rejecting the contention referred to the provisions of Section 4 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as under:
4. Trial of offence under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.-(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner of place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.
10. It is apparent from the reading of Section 4 that provisions of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable where an offence under the IPC or under any other law is being investigated, inquired into, tried or otherwise dealt with. These offences under any other law could also be investigated, inquired into or tried with according to the provisions of Cr.P.C. except in case of an offence where the procedure prescribed there under is different than the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. The Court noted that Section 466A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act specifically lays down that the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply to the offences prescribed under various provisions of the said Act as if it were a cognizable offence for the purpose of investigation of such offence. It is so specifically provided under Section 155 of the Electricity Act also. Thus, it is not a case where any special or different procedure is prescribed. Rather, the procedure contained the Code of Criminal Procedure is made applicable for the offences to be tried under the Electricity Act as well. In fact, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner itself is that for filing of the complaint, the procedure contained under Section 200 etc. Cr. P.C. would be applicable.
11. While brushing aside the contention that the Court could not proceed to the trial of offence under Section 322 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act unless there was a complaint filed before the Court, following pertinent observations were made:
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the complaint was not filed by the Commissioner or any person authorised by him, therefore, the Court could not proceed to the trial of the offence under Section 332 of the Act. In making the submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not given due consideration to the fact that the prosecution could be initiated upon information received by the Court from an officer of the Corporation. Such an information can be received by the court from the Officer of the Corporation either directly or through the agency of the police. Where the police starts investigation into the matter on the information furnished by the authorised officer of the Corporation, who is competent to file a complaint, and the police on the basis of the said information investigates the matter and finally files a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot be said that the Court to which such a report is filed is not acting on the information received from the authorised officer of the Corporation. Section 467 does not lay down as to how the information should be received by the Court from the Commissioner or the person authorised by him in this behalf. It nowhere says that the information should be directly filed in the Court by the Commissioner or the person authorised by him in this behalf. Therefore, the information could also be received by the Metropolitan Magistrate through the report filed by the police under Section 173 of the Code which in turn is based on the complaint of the Commissioner or the person authorised by him.
12. It would also be of interest to note that Section 469 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act provides for appointment of Municipal Magistrates for trial of offences under the said Act. The contention was, therefore, raised that in view of the fact that only Municipal Magistrates can take cognizance, FIR could not be filed. This contention was also repelled. Though reason for rejection was on the ground that Municipal Magistrates were not appointed, even if Special Court as Electricity Courts are constituted, legal position would not change and the only difference it would make is that the police will have to file its report before the Special Court and not before the ordinary Court. Therefore, simply because the Special Courts are designated would not mean that the case cannot originate on the basis of an FIR.
13. In M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , the question arose as to whether Section 195 and Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. affect the power of police to investigate into a cognizable offence. This case has direct bearing in so far as the question mooted in the instant case is concerned. Section 195 provides for prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. It also states that no Court shall take cognizance of the offences specified therein except on a complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure as to how the complaint may be preferred under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Alleging that the accused had committed an offence under Section 195, the complainant had made a complaint to the police and police had initiated investigation thereon. The accused/respondent had contended that since the case was filed under Section 195 Cr.P.C. it was provisions of Chapter XVI Cr.P.C. which would apply and not Chapter XII Cr.P.C. (relating to investigation by the police). This contention was rejected in the following manner:
8. We are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondent. Firstly, it is to be seen that the High Court does not quash the complaint on the ground that Section 195 applied and that the procedure under Chapter XXVI had not been followed. Thus such a ground could not be used to sustain the impugned judgment. Even otherwise, there is no substance in the submission. The question whether Sections 195 and 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code affect the power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence has already been considered by this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Raj Singh . In this case it has been held as follows: (SCC pp. 391-92, para 2)
“2. We are unable to sustain the impugned order of the High Court quashing the FIR lodged against the respondent alleging commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 IPC by them in course of the proceeding of a civil suit, on the ground that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC prohibited entertainment of and investigation into the same by the police. From a plain reading of Section 195 CrPC it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage when the court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) CrPC; and it has nothing to do with the statutory power of the police to investigate into an FIR which discloses a cognizable offence, in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding under the Code is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by Section 195 CrPC. It is of course true that upon the charge-sheet (challan), if any, filed on completion of the investigation into such an offence the court would not be competent to take cognizance thereof in view of the embargo of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, but nothing therein deters the court from filing a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR (filed by the aggrieved private party) and the materials collected during investigation, provided it forms the requisite opinion and follows the procedure laid down in Section 340 CrPC. The judgment of this Court in Gopalakrishna Menon v. D. Raja Reddy on which the high Court relied, has no manner of application to the facts of the instant case for there cognizance was taken on a private complaint even though the offence of forgery was committed in respect of a money receipt produced in the civil court and hence it was held that the court could not take cognizance on such a complaint in view of Section 195 CrPC.”
Not only are we bound by this judgment but we are also in complete agreement with the same. Section 195 and 340 do not control or circumscribe the power of the police to investigate under the Criminal Procedure Code. Once investigation is completed then the embargo in Section 195 would come into place and the court would not be competent to take cognizance. However, that court could then file a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during investigation provided the procedure laid down in Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is followed. Thus no right of the respondent, much less the right to file an appeal under Section 341, is affected.
14. Thus, the clear principle which emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that even when a Magistrate is to take cognizance when a complaint is filed before it, that would not mean that the police cannot take cognizance thereof.
15. It is stated at the cost of repetition that the offences under the Electricity act are also to be tried by applying the procedure contained in Cr.P.C. Thus, it cannot be said that a complete machinery is provided under the Electricity Act as to how such offences are to be dealt with. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that learned Counsel for the NDPL, is right in his submission that if the offence under the Cr.P.C. is cognizable, provisions of Chapter XII containing Section 154 Cr.P.C. and onward would become applicable and it would be the duty of the police to register the FIR and investigate into the same. Maxim generalibus specialia derogant shall have no application when the provisions are read in the aforesaid manner. Sections 135 and 138 only prescribe that certain acts relating to theft of electricity etc. would also be offences. It also enables certain persons/parties, as mentioned in Section 151, to become complainant in such cases and file complaint before a Court in writing. When such a complaint is filed, the Court would be competent to take cognizance straightway. However, that would not mean that other avenues for investigation into the offence which are available would be excluded. It is more so when no such special procedure for trying the offences under the Electricity Act is formulated and the cases under this Act are also to be governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
15. In this backdrop, the notification dated 8.6.2005 issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 176 of the Electricity Act becomes all the more relevant. Vide this notification the Electricity Rules, 2005, have been framed and Rule 12 which is relevant reads as under:
12(i) The police shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act on a complaint in writing made to the police by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them in this regard or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or an authorized officer of Licensee or a Generating Company, as the case may be.
(2) The police shall investigate the complaint in accordance with the general law applicable to the investigation of any complaint. For the purposes of investigation of the complaint, the police shall have at the powers as available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(3) The police shall after investigation, forward the report along with the complaint filed under Sub-clause (1) to the Court for trial under the Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-clauses (1), (2) and (3) above, the complaint for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act may also be filed by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or an authorized officer of Licensee or a Generating Company, as the case may be directly in the appropriate Court.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, every special Court may take cognizance of an offence referred to in Section 135 to 139 of the Act without the accused being committed to it for trial.
16. The aforesaid rule clearly puts an obligation on the police to take cognizance of the offence punishable under the Electricity Act. It may be relevant to point out that the power to lodge the FIR was also given in DERC (Performance of Standards-Metering and Billing) Regulation 2002. These regulations continue to hold the filed even after coming into force the Electricity Act 2003, as the same have been framed under the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Authority. These regulations are upheld by this Court in Sohal Lal v. North Delhi Power Ltd. and Ors. .
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition. The judgment cited by the petitioner’s counsel will also be of no avail as they are inapplicable. The petitions being devoid of merit are hereby dismissed. No costs.