(Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy, JJ.)
Union of India _____________________________________ Appellant
v.
Mustaq @ Mustafa & Ors. _________________________ Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2010, decided on June 9, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 15.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10090 of 2005, by which the High Court, after considering the facts of the case, directed that Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rule 12 of the Electricity Rules would be kept in abeyance and would be made applicable when the proposed amendment of the Electricity Act actually took effect.
2. The High Court has observed as follows:-
“The Act, 2003 provides certain offences punishable in accordance with law. One of such offence is theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Act. Section 135 of the Act does not preclude applicability of Cr. P. C. absolutely. Rule 12 of the Rules is speaking directly on the issue. But according to us, there is a direct conflict between such rule and Section 151 of the Act. Had it been the case that Section 151 is exercisable, we could have given thought in respect of the questions raised by the petitioners, but now when the Bill has been presented proposing amendment of such Section by converting non-cognizable offence to cognizable offence, we should not interfere with it. We can only keep the applicability of both Section 151 of the Act and Rule 12 of the Rules in abeyance till the amendment actually takes place.”
(Emphasis supplied).
3. The learned Additional Solicitor General has pointed out a decision of this Court in “Assistant Electrical Engineer v. Satyendra Rai” reported in (2014) 4 SCC 513, where this Court has specifically held in paragraph 9 as follows:-
“….Therefore, considering the language of para 4 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it is clear that the amendment brought in is clarificatory in nature and as such, it would take into its ambit even the pending matters and in that sence, it would be a retrospective amendment.”
4. To that extent, the other decision of this Court in “Vishal Agrawal v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board” reported in (2014) 3 SCC 696 also plays the same role.
5. In view of the above cited decisions of this Court, wherein it has been specifically stated that it is clear from the language of para 4 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the amendment brought in is clarificatory in nature and as such it would be a retrospective amendment, we hold that the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be given effect to and is hereby set aside and direct that the orders passed by this Court, which we have cited hereinabove, be followed.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 978/2010
Union of India _____________________________________ Appellant
v.
Mustaq @ Mustafa & Ors. _________________________ Respondent(s)
Date: 09/06/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy, JJ.)
(VACATION BENCH)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, ASG
Mr. N. K. Karhail, Adv.
Mr. Shankar Divate, Adv.
Mr. G. S. Makkar, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Rao, AAG
Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Archna, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Misra, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
Order
7. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.
———
