JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this criminal appeal filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C., the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., is challenging validity of the judgment dated 28.6.2013 passed by Special Court, Electricity Offence cum Addl. District Judge No.l, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 97/11 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and passed an order to refund the amount of Rs. 55,590/-, deposited by him under protest on 12.3.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the judgment impugned is totally erroneous because it has been passed without application of mind and considering the reliable and cogent evidence produced by the Company before the trial Court. It is also argued that the prosecution was launched against the respondent after expiry of one year and nine months and for the such delay, an explanation was also furnished by leading evidence but the trial Court has failed to consider the evidence produced by the appellant to explain the delay, so also, the learned trial Court has completely failed to consider the important aspect of the case that before registration of case notice for demand was given by the appellant Company, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and respondent is liable to be punished. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that totally false case was registered against the petitioner in spite of the fact that in pursuance of the demand raised by the appellant, Rs. 55,590/- were deposited by the respondent under protest and a prayer was made to adjudicate the question of demand strictly in accordance with law but inspite of deciding the case of the respondent for consumption of electricity, the appellant Company lodged criminal case against the respondent but after due trial, the trial Court acquitted the respondent and held that criminal case lodged after delay of one year and nine months is not proper, so also, the Executive Engineer, who was leader of the Vigilance Team, was not produced before the Court to prove the allegations against the respondent, therefore, the instant appeal may be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment impugned. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment impugned. Admittedly, the Vigilance report Ex.P.4 was prepared on 21.10.2008 but FIR Ex.P.2 was filed against the respondent on 12.7.2010 after expiry of one year and nine months and no satisfactory explanation is given by the appellant before the trial Court for such delay, therefore, on this count, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him for offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act. It is also very important aspect of the matter that Vigilance party inspected the premises of the respondent in the leadership of one witness Subhash who was working on the post of Executive Engineer but the said witness was not produced before the Court for recording his statement or to prove the allegation against the respondent for alleged misuse of electricity. Therefore, in my opinion, when action was initiated against the respondent for civil liability for using the electricity by fraud then obviously before finalisation of those proceedings, there was no question to lodge criminal case against the respondent, therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent while giving benefit of doubt. Therefore, no interference is called for in the finding for acquittal of the respondent from the charge levelled against him under Section 135 of Electricity Act. However, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction to pass an order to refund the amount which is said to be deposited under protest by the respondent upon demand raised in pursuance of VCR No. 1602/23 dated 21.10.2008, therefore, following part of the judgment, which reads as " vfHk;qDr }kjk bl oh0lh0vkj0 la[;k 1602@23 fnukad 21-10-08 ds isVs] vaMj izksVSLV jkf'k 55]590@& ( fipiu gtkj ikap lkS uCcs :i;s ) fnukad 12-03-13 dks tek djk;s x;s FksA mDr jkf'k eqyfte dks foHkkx ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy okfil ykSVk;sxkA " is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondent will be at liberty to file application strictly in accordance with law for refund of amount, if any deposited by him contrary to law under threat of Vigilance Team of the appellant Company.The appeal is party allowed with above modification. *******