Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Court Fee Act provides for payment of ad valorem court fee on plaint, written statement pleading a set off or counter claim or memorandum of appeal or cross-objections presented to civil or revenue courts except those mentioned in Section 3. Unless the respondent can bring its case within the parameters of Article 1 of Schedule 1, ad valorem court fee would not be payable in respect of the amount claimed by the petitioner as civil liability of the respondents. Therefore, the question which arises is whether the complaint filed by the petitioner can be deemed to be a „plaint‟ within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Court Fee Act and whether the special court can be said to be a civil court for the purpose of this article. Taking into consideration the proposition of law enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjeet Singh Patheja (Supra), special courts cannot be deemed to be civil court, the same having been specially set up u/s 153 of the Special Courts Act primarily for the purpose of trial of offence punishable U/ss 135 to 140 and Section 150 of Electricity Act. These special courts are not regular courts envisaged under Article 136 of the Constitution irrespective of the fact that the person who can be appointed as a Judge of a Special Court needs to be an Additional District & Sessions Judge immediately before his appointment as a Judge of a Special Court. In any case, in the absence of any specific statutory provision to this effect, a court set up primarily for the purpose of trial of the criminal offences cannot be considered to be a civil court within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Court Fee Act.
24. In any case, the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Special Court cannot be construed as a „plaint‟ by any logical construction of the document. A bare perusal of this document, styled as a complaint u/s 135 r/w Section 151 of Electricity Act would show that the main prayer made by the complainant/petitioner was to summon, try and punish the respondents/accused persons on the ground that they had committed theft of electricity and had thereby committed offences punishable u/s 135(1) of Electricity Act, 2003. The complaint also contains an additional prayer to the court to determine the civil liability as provided in Section 154(5) of the Act. In my view, merely because this complaint also contains a prayer for determination of civil liability that by itself does not convert it into a „plaint‟. A document cannot be said to be a criminal complaint as well as a plaint at the same time. A criminal plaint lies before a criminal court whereas the plaint lies before a civil court. The procedure prescribed in Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of a case instituted on a complaint is altogether different from the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, for trial of a suit instituted by filing a plaint. Therefore, this document cannot be termed as a plaint within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule 1 of Court Fee Act.
25. Section 26(2) of Code of Civil Procedure provides that in every plaint, facts shall be proved by affidavit. On the other hand, Section 154 of Electricity Act, 2003 provides that the special court may try the offences referred to in Section 135 to 140 and Section 150 in a summary way in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Section 263 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall, so far as may be, apply to such trial. It does not prescribe any separate procedure for determination of civil liability. The Electricity Act does not envisage application of two procedures, by special court, one for the purpose of trial of offences referred to in Section 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Act and the other for determination of civil liability u/s 154(5) of the Act. Had the legislative intent been that for the purpose of determination of civil liability, the special court would adopt the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure for trial of a suit, it would have expressly stated so in the Act. In any case this is not the case of the respondents that the Special Courts, are conducting two independent proceedings, one in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Cr.P.C. for trial of the offences of which the complaint has primarily been filed and the other in accordance with the procedure prescribed in CPC for trial of civil suits, for determining civil liability u/s 154(5) of Electricity Act.
29. The entire procedure for trial of a civil suit instituted by presentation of a plaint as prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure is altogether different from the procedure prescribed for dealing with the complaints in respect of the offences referred to in Section 135 to 140 and Section 150 of Electricity Act. Neither adoption of such a procedure has been prescribed by Section 154 of Electricity Act nor is such a procedure otherwise implicit in that Act.
30. The interpretation given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Industrial Finance Corpn. (Supra), followed by this court in Prakash Playing Cards Manufacturing Co. (Supra) equally applies to Section 154 (5) of Electricity Act, 2003. The view being taken by me also finds full support from the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in, Paramjit Singh Patheja (Supra), interpreting Section 15 of Arbitration Act of 1899 and Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
31. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered view that ad valorem court fee is not payable on the complaints filed by the petitioner before the Special Courts. The view taken by the learned Judge of the Special Court is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
Delhi High Court
Print Page
