JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Yashwant Tiwari, submits that he does not want to argue anything else except for the ground stated in the four-line written synopsis which he has submitted in the Court. After submitting this, the counsel for the appellant left the Court even without waiting for hearing the response of the learned counsel for the respondent and without giving any reply, if any, to the submissions of the counsel for the respondent in spite of the fact that there were around 16 similar cases listed today and that the respondent in each of the cases is being represented by different counsels. 2. This Court proceeds to hear and decide the appeal confining itself to the submission made by the counsel for the appellant in his written synopsis. In the written synopsis in respect of this case, learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the finding of the Court below on the following sole ground: "Since the officers and staff of Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Ltd., who had inspected the premises and prepared Panchnama, are not police officers and, therefore, their report, oral evidence and documents prepared stands proved and are admissible under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act and the said evidence need not be further corroborated." 3. The instant acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 16.6.2008 passed by Special Judge (under the Electricity Act, 2003), Raigarh, in Special Case No.53/2007, whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the instant acquittal appeal as per the prosecution are that the respondent had taken an electric connection No.72/68/48351 for domestic use from the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Sarangarh. On account of non-payment of electricity bills amounting to Rs. 12,030/-, the said electric connection of the respondent was disconnected by the Board on 12.4.2007. However, on 16.4.2007, on sudden inspection of the house of the respondent by R. Dayasi, Assistant Engineer and his staff, it was found that the respondent had taken an electric connection by direct hooking from the Low Tension Line or the Board installed near his house and thereby he was committing theft of electricity. However, on 16.4.2007, on sudden inspection of the house of the respondent by R. Dayasi, Assistant Engineer and his staff, it was found that the respondent had taken an electric connection by direct hooking from the Low Tension Line or the Board installed near his house and thereby he was committing theft of electricity. It was held that the accused respondent had put the State Electricity Board to loss of Rs.12,441/- (including Rs.111/-towards damages + Rs.300/- towards compensation + Rs. 12,030/- towards previous dues). Accordingly, the assessment order was prepared in respect of the loss caused. Thereafter, a complaint case (registered as 'Special Case No.53/2001') was filed before the Court below against the respondent-accused for having committed the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the matter was put to trial. 5. During the course of trial, three witnesses i.e. PW -1 R. Dayasi, Assistant Engineer, PW-2 A.L. Patel, Office Assistant Grade-II and PW-3 Chheduram Patem, Lineman, were examined by the prosecution. All of whom were departmental witnesses. 6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the -Court below after taking into consideration the evidences that have been lead on behalf of the complainant, held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that there are many lacunas on the part of the prosecution in establishing its case inasmuch according to PW-1 R. Dayasi, Assistant Engineer, on 12.4.2007 there was an amount of Rs. 11,000/- outstanding upon the respondent and, therefore, his electric connection was disconnected on 12.4.2007 by one Sunderlal, whereas, in the complaint it is reflected that an amount of Rs. 12,030/- was outstanding upon the respondent, and that PW-2 A.L. Patel, Office Assistant Grade-II, makes a statement that the outstanding amount was of Rs.11,354/-. Thus, there was material contradictions in respect of the amount outstanding upon the respondent. In addition, there has been no proof whatsoever produced by the prosecution so as to establish and prove the case of the prosecution with regard to the fact that there was an outstanding of Rs. 12,030/- against the respondent. Similarly, the person (Sunderlal) who has disconnected the electricity connection of the respondent has also not been examined by the prosecution and that he would have been the best person to establish the disconnection of the electric line of the respondent. 12,030/- against the respondent. Similarly, the person (Sunderlal) who has disconnected the electricity connection of the respondent has also not been examined by the prosecution and that he would have been the best person to establish the disconnection of the electric line of the respondent. In addition, in the entire case of the prosecution, there was no independent witness to support the case of the prosecution which also is a procedure contrary to the provisions of law and that even the inspecting team had not called for any of the neighbours residing in the vicinity of the respondent, as is required under Section 100 (4) of CrPC. Further, as regards the seizure of the electric wires etc. is concerned, the respondent was not served with any Panchnama so prepared. Further, the respondent was not issued with any notice by the officers of the Electricity Board prior to the entry made by the officers for search and seizure. This amounts to violation of Section 135 (3) of the Electricity Act. Similarly, from the Panchnama it also reflects that the respondent has not used any additional wire and that the wire which was disconnected from the post was found to have been again joined. Thus, the case of the prosecution in respect of committing the offence of theft of electricity by direct hooking is not established or proved. Thus, taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below reached to the specific finding that firstly the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case and secondly the prosecution has failed to comply many mandatory requirements of the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rules, 2006 framed therein. Therefore, giving the advantage of it to the respondent-accused, the Court below vide its judgment dated 16.6.2008 acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 7. It is this judgment of acquittal dated 16.6.2008 which is under challenge in the instant acquittal appeal. 8. Therefore, giving the advantage of it to the respondent-accused, the Court below vide its judgment dated 16.6.2008 acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 7. It is this judgment of acquittal dated 16.6.2008 which is under challenge in the instant acquittal appeal. 8. The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that since the officers and staff of Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Ltd., who had inspected the premises and prepared Panchnama, are not police officers and, therefore, their report, oral evidence and documents prepared stands proved and are admissible under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act and the said evidence need not be further corroborated. 9. There is no whisper either in the memo of appeal or in the written synopsis submitted by the counsel for the appellant as regards non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 2006 framed by the State of Chhattisgarh, without which the entire proceedings initiated under Section 135 of the Electricity Act gets vitiated. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the judgment passed by the Court below was proper, legal and justified and does not warrant any interference. He further submits that there are no independent witnesses to the entire proceedings allegedly drawn on behalf of the Electricity Board. Similarly, since the three witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are all officer and employee of the same department, it can be safely held that they are interested witnesses and, therefore, the testimony of these witnesses looses its credibility. Likewise, the provisions of Rules of 2006 have not been followed by the prosecution. Thus, the acquittal appeal deserves to be rejected. 11. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the scope of interfering in an acquittal appeal is very limited and that it has to be proved on behalf of the complainant beyond all reasonable doubts in respect of commission of the offence by the respondent and that even if there is a slightest of doubt in respect of the case having been proved or not, the benefit would always go in favour of the accused. Accordingly, the Court below has rightly passed an order of acquittal in favour of the respondent. 12. Accordingly, the Court below has rightly passed an order of acquittal in favour of the respondent. 12. Considered the contentions put forth by the learned counsel appearing for either side and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment. 13. If we peruse the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is evidently clear that Section 135 deals with the theft of electricity offences and penalties therein. After report of the theft of electricity, cognizance of the offence under the Electricity Act is taken as per the provision of Section 151 of the said Act which deals as to how cognizance of an offence has to be taken. For ready reference, the provision of Section 151 is reproduced : “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 authorized 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: 1[Provided that the court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Provided further that a special court constituted under section 153 shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.]" 14. After taking cognizance of the offence, the matter is placed before the Special Court constituted for this purpose by the State Government as per the provision of 153 of the Electricity Act. Further, if we see the Rules framed under the Electricity Act, 2003, known as Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rule, 2006 which came into force with effect from 22.03.2006, Rule 5 deals with entry, search and seizure in respect of the unauthorized use and theft of electricity, which is reproduced below: "5. (i) For the purpose of detection of theft as defined in Section 135 of the Act the officer of Board/distribution licensee are authorised to carry out functions of the entry, search and seizure as per Section 135 of the Act. Assistant Electrical Inspector or Chief Electrical Inspector of Government of Chhattisgarh shall also be authorised for making entry, search and seizure for the purpose of detection of theft. Assistant Electrical Inspector or Chief Electrical Inspector of Government of Chhattisgarh shall also be authorised for making entry, search and seizure for the purpose of detection of theft. (ii) The officers, entering, inspecting, breaking open, searching any place shall record the reasons for doing so in Form-2. (iii) In case the inspection, search and seizure of any domestic place or domestic premises is to be carried out as per sub-section (2) of Section 135 of the Act, the reasons for doing so shall have to be recorded in Form 3 by the officer not below the rank of-Assistant Engineer of Distribution Licensee or Assistant Electrical Inspector of the Chief Electrical Inspectorate. A Panchnama shall also be made in Form 4." Similarly, Rule 7 lays on the procedure as to how assessment of charges for unauthorized use and theft of electricity and payment thereof has been enumerated. For ready reference, the relevant portion of Rule-7 is reproduced herein under: "7. (i) On inspection of the premises, if any consumer or' person is found to indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the assessing officer, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, shall may a provisional assessment of the charge payable by the owner or occupier the premises who is benefited by indulging in un-authorised use of energy may have given benefit to any other person. (ii) The provisional assessment shall be made by the assessing officer and the provisional assessment order shall be served upon the person in occupation or possession or incharge of the place or premises in Form 5. (iii) For the purpose of assessment, the following officers shall be the assessment officers:- (a) Chief Electrical Inspector or an officer authorized by the Chief Electrical Inspector not below the rank of Assistant Electrical Inspector. (b) Following officers of Board or distribution licensee:- (i) Officers of the rank of Assistant Engineers for all LT connection up to 15 KW connected load. (ii) Officers of the rank of Executive Engineers for all LT connections of more than 15 KW connected load. (iii) Officer of the rank of Superintending Engineers and above for all IT connections: ..... (iv) The provisional order of assessment made by the assessing officer shall be served upon the person within a period of three (3) days form the date of inspection. (iii) Officer of the rank of Superintending Engineers and above for all IT connections: ..... (iv) The provisional order of assessment made by the assessing officer shall be served upon the person within a period of three (3) days form the date of inspection. Assessment shall be made as per the provisions contained in Section 126 of the Act. (v) The person to whom the order of provisional assessment has been served upon may file his objections or acceptance or partial acceptance within 7 days from the date of receipt of the provisional order. The assessing Officer may finally pass a final order in Forn1 6 after taking into consideration the objections/acceptance/partial acceptance of the person/consumer within one month of the date of the order of provisional assessment. However, the assessing officer if he considers so necessary may allow personal hearing to the person/consumer assessed." 15. If we peruse the documents that have been brought before the Court below in respect of the instant case, it is apparently clear that the prosecution has not been able to establish before the Court below as to how the requirements of the mandatory provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Rules, 2006 have been complied with. 16. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evidently clear that on I the date of inspection i.e. on 16.4.2007, when the inspecting team was said I to have inspected the premises of the respondent, the inspecting squad has not I given intimation as is required under Form-2 of Rules of 2006 nor-had the inspecting squad intimated. the respondent or his family members about the purpose of inspecting their premises as is required under Form-3 of the Rules of 2006, which is a mandatory requirement under the said Rules as is envisaged under Part-III of the said Rules. Similarly, as per Rule-5 of the Rules of 2006 the provisional assessment of the loss and damages caused to the Electricity Board as assessed by the inquiring officer was also not furnished or provided to the respondent within a period of 3 days as is required under Rule-5 of the Rules of 2006 which also amounts to violation of Section 26 of the Act. Further, in view of the fact that there was no independent witness to the prosecution and the fact that there is a clear non-compliance of the mandatory compliance of the provisions of the Rules of 2006, the entire proceedings allegedly initiated by the officers of the Electricity Board give rise to a great element of doubt. It is always a settled position of law that whenever a doubt is created on the prosecution story or on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the benefit of doubt is always to be given to the accused person. Thus, in the instant case, there being no independent witnesses to the prosecution and that there being clear non-compliance and violation of the mandatory requirement of the provisions of the Rules of 2006, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent for the alleged offence punishable under Section 135 A of the Act. 17. On due consideration of the evidences available on record and the grounds put forth by the respondent before the Court below, it is evidently clear that the prosecution has failed to give any justifiable reason for non-compliance of the provisions of the Electricity Act which otherwise are mandatorily required. Even in the instant case, there has been no effort made on behalf of the appellant Board to show before this Court as to how the Board has met with the requirement of the Rules of 2006 framed under the Electricity Act, 2003. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the finding arrived at by the Court below is purely in accordance with law and the Court below has not committed any error of law in reaching to the said conclusion of acquitting the respondent of the charge leveled against him. 18. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed being totally devoid of merits. Appeal Dismissed.