JUDGMENT : G.B SHAH, J. As both these appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 6.5.2016 passed in Special Electricity Case No. 6 of 2010 and Sessions Case No. 94 of 2010 by the learned Special Judge, Electricity, Mehsana, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2016 has been filed by the appellants-original accused against the common judgment and order dated 6.5.2016 passed in Special Electricity Case No. 6 of 2010 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2016 has been filed in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2010 by the learned Special Judge-Electricity, Mehsana, whereby each of the original accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 44,162/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 135(1) read with section 150 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short), simple imprisonment for two months with fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under section 186 read with section 114 of IPC and simple imprisonment for four months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 135 of B.P Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused were given set off for the period undergone in jail. 3. Facts in short are that on a surprise check having carried out at the houses of accused Nos. 1 and 2 by the officials of Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “UGVCL” for short) on 18.8.2009 approximately at 10.15 a.m, they were found to have committed theft of electricity amounting to Rs. 14,720.50, by joining black colour telephone wire with 2W L.T Line passing through their houses. When the said surprise checking was commenced, accused No. 1 alleged to have angrily rushed towards the complainant and the witnesses with a stick in his hand and then picked up the bricks lying there in an attempt to harm them and accused No. 3 climbed up the ladder and pulled off the black coloured 15 mtr long telephone wire illegally attached with the L.T Line. Thus, the accused were alleged to have committed offences punishable under section 135(1) read with section 150 of the Act, section 186 read with section 114 of IPC and section 135 of B.P Act for which, a complaint was filed before G.E.B Police Station by the complainant-Deputy Engineer, UGVCL, Shri. Ramanlal Madhavlal Patel on 21.8.2009 which was registered as II-C.R No. 1237 of 2009 and police started investigation. At the end of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused in the Court. As the case was sessions triable, the same was committed to the Special Court-Electricity, Mehsana for trial, where it was numbered as Special Electricity Case No. 6 of 2010. 3.1 It may be noted that on 18.9.2009, against the present accused, case of theft of electricity was registered for the offence punishable under section 186 read with section 114 of IPC at Vijapur Police Station being II-C.R No. 118 of 2009 and, as connected case being Special Electricity Case No. 6 of 2010 registered against the present accused was pending before Special Court-Electricity, Mehsana, the said case namely, II-C.R No. 118 of 2009 was also committed to the said Court for trial where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 94 of 2010. Thereafter, common charge was framed in both the cases which was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, common charge was framed in both the cases which was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.2 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined following witnesses: P.W No. Name of witness Exhibit No. 1 Patel Ramanbhai Madhavbhai 16 2 Patel Mukeshbhai Hargovinddas 87 3 Patel Dineshbhai Bhagvandas 89 4 Vihol Rajuji Nathaji 91 5 Kanuji Mulji Vihol 95 6 Babaji Ramaji Rathod 96 7 Maheshbhai Magabhai Solanki 103 8 Shankarbhai Mavjibhai Kotwal 111 9 Balvantsinh Khumansinh Vaghela 113 3.3 The prosecution also relied on following documentary evidence: Description Exhibit No. Investigation papers 17 Original rojkam 59 Copy of original diagram showing position of house 60 Complaint relating to the offence 61 Copy of calculation sheet Annexure-C 62 Notice issued concerning bill 63 Bill concerning second offence 64 Complaint relating to electricity 65 Investigation report relating to earlier theft 66 Rojkam done at the place of theft 67 Copy of calculation sheet Annexure-C 68 Notice relating to theft of electricity 69 Bill relating to theft of electricity 70 RPAD slip duly returned 71 Acknowledgement receipt 72 Complaint relating to theft of electricity 73 Receipt for keeping muddamal in custody 74 Copy of Receipt Nos. 34391 and 34392 81 Receipt for payment having made for second offence 83 Panchnama of scene of offence 92 Panchnama of seizure of dangerous weapon 93 Depute order 104 Office copy of muddamal receipt 105 Copy of station diary entry 112 Depute order to PSO 114 Report for adding sections 115 Notification prohibiting arms 116 3.4 After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C were recorded. The accused declared that they do not want to examine defense witnesses. In the further statement, accused No. 1 has stated that “the alleged house was not there. His house number is 2238, which was closed and they were not present”. So far as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they have stated that “they were not present”. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, impugned common judgment and order, as aforesaid in the earlier part of this judgment, was delivered giving rise to these appeals. 4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Vikram J. Thakor, for the appellants-original accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, impugned common judgment and order, as aforesaid in the earlier part of this judgment, was delivered giving rise to these appeals. 4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Vikram J. Thakor, for the appellants-original accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. K.L Pandya, for the respondent-State in Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2016 and Ms. H.B Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State in Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2016. 5. Mr. Vikram Thakor, learned advocate for the original accused, submitted that in respect of the alleged incident dated 18.8.2009, complaint was registered at Vijapur Police Station on 18.8.2009 as II-C.R No. 118 of 2009 for the offences punishable under section 186 read with section 114 of IPC and section 135 of B.P Act in which, no reference of the alleged offence punishable under section 135(1)(v) of the Act was made. However, second complaint was registered as II-C.R No. 1237 of 2009 at Sabarmati G.E.B Police Station on 21.8.2009 for the alleged offence of theft of electricity punishable under section 135(1)(v) of the Act. However, trial for two different cases triable by two different Courts was commonly held which, according to him, is illegal and untenable, which aspect has not been considered by the learned Special Judge. 5.1 He further submitted that the learned Special Judge, having answered all the issues in negative, ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction on the appellants as it is contrary to the answers given for issues framed. 5.2 Taking this Court through the deposition of P.W No. 9, Balvantsinh Khumansinh Vaghela at Exh.113, he submitted that the learned Special Judge ought to have appreciated that no statement of the complainant was subsequently recorded, no statement of any independent witness was also recorded and no officer of the rank of Police Inspector from the concerned Police Station had also visited the place of incident. 5.3 He further submitted that there are various contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses inasmuch as the evidence of P.W No. 1-complainant-Patel Ramanbhai Madhavbhai at Exh. 16, P.W No. 2-Mukeshbhai Hargovinddas Patel at Exh. 5.3 He further submitted that there are various contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses inasmuch as the evidence of P.W No. 1-complainant-Patel Ramanbhai Madhavbhai at Exh. 16, P.W No. 2-Mukeshbhai Hargovinddas Patel at Exh. 87 and P.W No. 3-Dineshbhai Bhagwandas Patel at Exh 89, who are employees of UGVCL show that police officials were called at the place of incident and rojkam was prepared in their presence but, as per the deposition of police officer, P.W No. 9-Balvantsinh Khumansinh Vaghela at Exh.113, no police officer had visited the place of incident on the date of incident. This material contradiction completely dilutes the testimonies of other witnesses examined by the prosecution and therefore, the learned Special Judge ought to have appreciated that evidence of these witnesses do not inspire any confidence for basing conviction of the appellants-original accused. 5.4 Drawing attention of this Court on the evidence of P.W No. 4-Vihol Rajuji Nathaji, Exh.91, P.W No. 5-Kanuji Mulji Vihol, Exh.95 and P.W No. 6-Babaji Ramaji Rathod, who are, as such, panch witnesses of panchnama of scene of offence and recovery of weapon, he submitted that they have not supported the case of the prosecution and in absence of corroboration by the panch witnesses, the prosecution could not be said to have succeeded in proving the guilt against the accused. He further submitted that panchnama of scene of incident drawn was not in presence of independent panch and no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution inspite of the fact that it has come on record in the depositions of P.W Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that after the alleged incident, several persons of nearby area have gathered there. According to him, P.W Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are officials of UGVCL and are interested witnesses. Taking this Court through Exh.17-checking sheet and Exh.59-rojkam done by the concerned officials of UGVCL, he submitted that the learned Special Judge ought to have held that they do not inspire any confidence in view of evidence of the complainant, Mr. Patel Ramanbhai Madhavlal, P.W No. 1 at Exh.16 5.5 He further submitted that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that section 135 of the B.P Act is not applicable in the present case as no ingredients of offence under said section have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Patel Ramanbhai Madhavlal, P.W No. 1 at Exh.16 5.5 He further submitted that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that section 135 of the B.P Act is not applicable in the present case as no ingredients of offence under said section have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 5.6 He relied on the following decisions: (i) Shantiji @ Nenaji Mafaji Thakor v. State of Gujarat rendered on 14.8.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 1806 of 2010 by this Court. (ii) Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 13 SCC 1 . (iii) A. Tajudeen v. Union of India reported in (2015) 4 SCC 435 . (iv) Gyan Singh v. State of U.P reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 658. (v) Parimal Bhogilal Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2010 (3) GLR 2514 . (vi) State of Gujarat v. Jayendrasinh Motisinh Zala rendered on 1.1.2012 in Criminal Misc. application No. 12110 of 2011 by this Court. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutors submitted that the learned Special Judge has appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record in correct perspective and held by elaborate reasons that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. They further submitted that barring panch witnesses, almost all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and their depositions are trustworthy and so, the accused were rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge and the findings arrived at by the learned Special Judge being just and proper are not required to be interfered with in these appeals, as theft of electricity is an alarming problem in our country causing huge loss to State revenue. 6.1 They relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gopalbhai Chandubhai Rana v. State of Gujarat reported in 2008 (3) G.L.R 2026 wherein it has been held in para 11 as under: “11. This Court has gone through the entire evidence on record oral as well as documentary. The important witness PW 4 Hasmukhlal L. Bhalsod who was Junior Engineer at the relevant time and who visited the premises in question and found that by taking electric connection directly from the pole using private wire the accused no. 1-Gopalbhai had committed theft of electricity. This Court has minutely gone through the evidence of this witness. The important witness PW 4 Hasmukhlal L. Bhalsod who was Junior Engineer at the relevant time and who visited the premises in question and found that by taking electric connection directly from the pole using private wire the accused no. 1-Gopalbhai had committed theft of electricity. This Court has minutely gone through the evidence of this witness. Before discussing the evidence of this witness, it is pertinent to note that this witness is a Government servant and he has no enmity with the accused persons. As per the evidence of this witness, he visited the premises to serve notice to one Smt. Anandiben A. Gohil whose electric connection was permanently disconnected as per the Samadhan scheme to recover due amount of electricity charges. During his visit he found that though the electric connection was disconnected lines were on and illegally by using private wire the accused no. 1 had obtained electric connection directly from the pole. As per his evidence, the accused no. 1-the present appellant Gopalbhai was present but the accused no. 2-Survirsinh alias Suresh Amarbhai Gohil was not present. He identified the accused no. 1 before the Court also. Immediately, on the spot, he had also prepared the Rojkam and map of the place which shows how the accused have committed theft of electricity directly from the pole. Exh.16 is the Rojkam and Exh.17 is the map of the place. He immediately called two linemen-one Muktarsing Shikh, PW 3 Exh.14 and the other M.I Diwan, PW 6 Exh.32 He also obtained signature of both these linemen as well as one Senior Assistant Mr. Vinodkumar S, PW 2, Exh.13 who was with him at the time of visit. The accused no. 1 also signed on the said Rojkam which is produced at Exh.16 and also made an endorsement to the effect that the contents of the said Rojkam are true and correct and that he had signed the same on his own free will without any coercion or any kind of threat. As per the evidence of this witness, he seized the wire which was used for obtaining illegal electric connection directly from the pole and also the meter and service wire and sent it along with Rojkam and map to the MGVCL office, Nadiad. Nothing has come out from the cross-examination of this witness which could falsify his version or create doubt about the truthfulness of his deposition. Nothing has come out from the cross-examination of this witness which could falsify his version or create doubt about the truthfulness of his deposition. This witness admitted in cross examination that he has neither prepared panchnama of scene of offence nor recorded the statement of neighbours. According to this witness, he has also not prepared seizure memo or supplied copy of the seizure memo to the accused. He also admitted that he has not lodged the complaint immediately against the accused. He denied that he had not obtained the signature of Gopalbhai in Rojkam. During the evidence of this witness rent note Exh.24 is proved which clearly shows that the accused no. 1 was tenant of the premises. The evidence of Mr. H.L Bhalsod, PW 4 is corroborated by the evidence of Mr. Jasubhai Ishubhai Gandhvi, PW 1. He has specifically stated on oath before the Court that along with the complaint, he has produced the Muddamal meter as well as the wire before the PSO which was produced by Mr. H.L Bhalsod, PW 4 in office. The evidence of Bhalsod is also corroborated by the evidence of PW 2 Vinodkumar who accompanied him at the time of visit of the premises on the day of incident and he also narrated the same story which is narrated by PW 4. He also specifically stated on oath that Muddamal meter and wire were seized from the place and brought to the MGVCL office and thereafter, it was sent to the Police Station. PW 3 Muktarsing and PW 6 Mohmed I. Diwan also supported the evidence of PW 4 Mr. Bhalsod. PW 6 M.I Diwan stated on oath that he had PW 3 Muktarsing were called by PW 4 Mr. Bhalsod on the spot and as per the instruction of PW 4 Mr. Bhalsod he climbed on the pole and cut off the connection. He also stated on oath that thereafter Line Inspector Muktarsing PW 3 and Helper seized the meter and wire. He specifically stated on oath that this meter is seized from the shop of Gopalbhai Rana and that Gopalbhai Rana had illegally obtained the electric connection directly from the pole. According to the evidence of this witness, thereafter, the said meter and wire were deposited in the MGVCL Office, Nadiad. He specifically stated on oath that this meter is seized from the shop of Gopalbhai Rana and that Gopalbhai Rana had illegally obtained the electric connection directly from the pole. According to the evidence of this witness, thereafter, the said meter and wire were deposited in the MGVCL Office, Nadiad. This witness has also deposed that the accused Gopalbhai Rana had also supplied electric connection from his illegal connection to one person who was running flour mill. He also stated on oath that at that time the accused Gopalbhai Rana was present. He denied in cross-examination that from the place of Gopalbhai wire or meter was not recovered or that he had not seen Gopalbhai on the spot. The evidence of PW 4 H.L Bhalsod is fully corroborated by the evidence of complainant PW 1 Jasubhai I. Gadhvi and two other Government servants-PW 2 Vinodkumar who was with PW 4 Bhalsod and PW 3 Muktarsing as well as PW 6 M.I Diwan. It is interesting to note that all these four witnesses have no enmity with the accused persons and there is no reason to give false evidence against the accused persons. Merely because procedure under Chapter VII of the Criminal Procedure Code Section 99 to 101 is not followed by PW 4 Mr. Bhalsod, it cannot be said that the whole case of the prosecution is false and only on this sole ground, the prosecution case should be thrown out. This lapse can be said to be merely an irregularity committed by the officer and when the evidence of PW 4 is found to be trustworthy and inspiring confidence which is corroborated by the documentary as well as by the oral evidence, then only on the ground of irregularity committed by this witness of not following the procedure as stated above, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. PW 4 Mr. Bhalsod the premises in question in his capacity as officer on duty and not in the capacity of Investigating Officer and so it is not required to follow the procedure laid down in Chapter VII Cr.P.C Sections 99 to 101. Even assuming that the said procedure is required to be followed, then also it can be said to be mere irregularity and by that no serious prejudice can be caused to the interest of the accused or the prosecution case. Even assuming that the said procedure is required to be followed, then also it can be said to be mere irregularity and by that no serious prejudice can be caused to the interest of the accused or the prosecution case. This Court has gone through the entire judgment delivered by the learned Special Judge, Kheda at Nadiad and found that the learned Special Judge has appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and by his well reasoned judgment had rightly acquitted the accused no. 2 and convicted the accused no. 1.” 6.2 They also relied on the case of Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357 more particularly towards head notes C and D, which read as under: “C. Criminal Trial-Examination-Non-examination/Failure to examine witness-Non-examination/Absence of independent witness-Effect, if any, on prosecution case-Reasons for non-examination of independent witnesses in present days, examined. D. Evidence Act, 1872-Ss.137 and 138-Examination of witnesses-Examination and cross-examination taking place several times in a piecemeal manner-Court forced to conduct chief-examination repeatedly because of subsequent surrender of some of accused persons-Minor discrepancies and deviations in evidence of witness in such a case-Held, immaterial-Length of time consumed in recording evidence of prosecution witness-Should be considered by Courts.” 7. This Court has gone through oral as well as documentary evidence on record together with the impugned common judgment and order as also the decisions cited at the bar by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 8. It appears from the evidence on record that when the officials of UGVCL had visited the houses of the accused, accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 tried to assault them and during the scuffle, accused No. 3 pulled off wire from the pole, locked the houses and went away by administering threat. In this regard, learned advocate, Mr. Thakor, took this Court through various depositions revealing that in all 13 to 15 persons of UGVCL were present at the place. He then submitted that it cannot be believed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 could close the doors of their houses and run away in presence of about 13 to 15 persons of UGVCL. I do not find any substance in the said submission more particularly because accused Nos. 1 to 3 are residents of a small Village where they can easily get support of surrounding villagers. 1 and 2 could close the doors of their houses and run away in presence of about 13 to 15 persons of UGVCL. I do not find any substance in the said submission more particularly because accused Nos. 1 to 3 are residents of a small Village where they can easily get support of surrounding villagers. Moreover, they are from Darbar Community and it is a common knowledge that persons from Darbar Community are, as such, generally very aggressive in nature and when they were caught red-handed by the officials of UGVCL, just to hide their action, they may go to any extent. In the complaint Exh.61 itself, it is averred that accused No. 1 angrily rushed towards the complainant and other officials with a stick in his hand and then also, picked up the bricks lying there and threatened them, which was also supported by the depositions of the prosecution witness Nos. 1, 2 and 3 examined by the prosecution. 9. It is to be noted that first FIR was registered at Vijapur Police Station being II-C.R No. 118 of 2009 on 18.8.2009 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 186 read with section 114 of IPC and 135 of B.P Act. However, when second FIR was registered at Sabarmati GEB Police Station on 21.8.2009 for the offence punishable under section 135(1) read with section 150 of the Act, as the case registered at Vijapur being triable by the Court of Sessions was committed by the learned Magistrate under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the Special Court, Electricity at Mehsana where it was numbered as Special Electricity Case No. 6 of 2010, the accused were prejudiced because they already lost an opportunity of filing an appeal before the Sessions Court so far as the first case registered at Vijapur Court is concerned. Both these cases were heard together and common charge was also framed and although entire evidence was recorded in presence of accused, at no point of time, order passed by court below was challenged before higher forum by taking the aforesaid ground. When they chose not to challenge the order before higher forum, they impliedly waived their right of appeal before higher forum and having failed to raise the said issue at the relevant time, now they cannot take the said issue in the present appeals. 10. When they chose not to challenge the order before higher forum, they impliedly waived their right of appeal before higher forum and having failed to raise the said issue at the relevant time, now they cannot take the said issue in the present appeals. 10. It is further to be noted that father of accused Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Nanuji had taken electric connection and same was made Permanent Dis-Connection (PDC) which was never reconnected. However, the accused have illegally taken electric connection by joining the wires. In the surprise check carried out earlier also, they were caught red-handed and ultimately, they paid the amount of supplementary bill and this is stated to be the second offence. 11. Mr. Thakor, learned advocate for the appellants, vehemently submitted that the learned Special Judge ought to have appreciated that even as per the deposition of the complainant recorded vide Exh.16, he has categorically admitted that no documents pertaining to the ownership of the houses have been seized at the relevant point of time nor produced by the prosecution and thus, the ownership and occupation of the houses are not proved at all. He then drew attention of this Court on the further statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 and submitted that so far as accused No. 1 is concerned, he has categorically stated that the alleged house was not at all in their possession and house No. 2238 was closed and they were not present and so far as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they have stated that they were not present. He then submitted that this important aspect has not been dealt with properly by the learned Special Judge and in absence of any proof regarding ownership and possession of the alleged houses of the accused, the trial court has wrongly convicted the present accused. On this aspect, learned APP, Mr. He then submitted that this important aspect has not been dealt with properly by the learned Special Judge and in absence of any proof regarding ownership and possession of the alleged houses of the accused, the trial court has wrongly convicted the present accused. On this aspect, learned APP, Mr. Pandya drew attention of this Court on the cross-examination made by the defense advocate of the complainant recorded at Exh.16 and submitted that if the admissions forthcoming on the record are perused, the same are enough to prove that the houses where surprise checking was carried out were belonged to the present accused and for the sake of argument, if no proof regarding the houses had been forthcoming on the record, then also, enough material regarding ownership and possession of the houses of the appellants-accused is forthcoming on the record by way of admissions as well as by way of other documentary evidence. Relevant portion of cross-examination of the complainant, which are in Gujarati vernacular language, translated into English reads as under: “I have been working in UGVCL for the last twenty years. I have spent most of time of my service in North Gujarat. Kukarvada is a sub division. It is true that when checking for theft of electricity was conducted, line was off. It is true that they would establish electricity supply after taking direct connection from the direct line. It is true that there were 3 houses at the time of first offence. It is true that I have not made inquiry nor have I seized any document to show ownership of the house. It is true that as Ranjitsinh denied to put signature at the time of the first offence, signature of his son Prakashsinh was obtained. It is not true that this signature was obtained after compelling Prakashsinh. It is not true that I asked Ranjitsinh to put signature second time also, but he did not put signature. The witness voluntarily states that second time Ranjitsinh and his sons went away after making attack. Therefore, there is no question of putting signature. It is not true that second time also, Ranjitsinh stated that I do not own these houses. It is true that only two persons Ranjitsinh and Prakashsinh were present at the time of second raid. It is not true that I dictated that both brothers were committing theft of electricity. Therefore, there is no question of putting signature. It is not true that second time also, Ranjitsinh stated that I do not own these houses. It is true that only two persons Ranjitsinh and Prakashsinh were present at the time of second raid. It is not true that I dictated that both brothers were committing theft of electricity. The witness voluntarily states that theft of electricity was being committed in both houses. At the time of second raid, I obtained documents wherein first house was in the name of Ranjitsinh, second house in the name of Rajuji Nenaji and third house in the name of Dilusinh Nenaji Vihol. There had been electricity connection before we conducted checking. This electricity connection was in the name of their father Nenaji Vihol. It is true that there was only one electricity connection in three houses earlier. When I checked first time earlier, there were the same houses. It is true that earlier electricity connection was in the name of Nenaji and the same had got PDC. It is not true that there was also one house other than aforesaid three houses. It is not true that one house other than three houses was in the name of Hemrajsinh Ranjitsinh and electricity connection was established therein. It is true that the house of Ranjitsinh was the last from the roadside. The first house was closed from the roadside. It is not true that third house belonged to Ranjitsinh and the same was closed and its number was 2238. It is true that when checking was conducted first time, the accused was not a consumer. It is not true that Prakashsinh refused to put signature. It is not true that rojkam was performed because of refusal to put signature. It is true that Prakashsinh denied to put signature in the exhibit no. 66. It is true that rojkam has been done and the same is produced vide exhibit no. 67. The distance between electricity pole and house of the accused is about 30 feet. It is not true that his house is about 60 feet from the road. It is not true that looking to the facts of the case, it has been shown that 10 mtr wire has been seized first time and thereafter 20 mtr wire. 67. The distance between electricity pole and house of the accused is about 30 feet. It is not true that his house is about 60 feet from the road. It is not true that looking to the facts of the case, it has been shown that 10 mtr wire has been seized first time and thereafter 20 mtr wire. At the time of the incident, I carried out checking in the society area of Manipura, Khanusa, Vijapur and Pilvai. My sub division office is at Kukarvada, but as I have to carry out mass checking procedure in Vijapur division, vehicles were called at 7-00 hours in the morning. I started the programme at 7-00 hours in the morning. It is true that, all these three vehicles were of different sub-divisions. It is true that, log book is maintained for the use of all these three vehicles. I am ready to produce the said log-book. There were total 15 persons including 12 persons and three drivers. I do not remember as to whether any case was filed on that day at Manipura and Khanusa. I do not know the fact as to whether I have filed any case other than this at Pilvai. It is true that, I have to submit my report of checking to my superintendent at the end of the day. I submitted this checking report to my superintendent. It is true that, if anyone informs about theft of electricity, entry of the same is made. On that day, nobody gave us report that the accused is committing theft of electricity in Pilvai village. It is true that, register is maintained in respect of the informant giving information about theft of electricity. It is not true that, I received such information about theft of electricity at the place of the accused due to personal animosity of election. It is not true that, I directly went from Vijapur to Pilvai to the place of the accused for checking. It is not true that, after directly going to the place of the accused, he was told the fact that, “As you commit theft of electricity, you have to put your signature.” It is true that, 15 mtr wire seized was given from the house of Bharthaji Nanaji. It is not true that, after keeping wire in the house and locking it, Prakashsinh and Ranjitsinh went away. It is not true that, after keeping wire in the house and locking it, Prakashsinh and Ranjitsinh went away. It is true that, Prakashsinh and Ranjitsinh went away after locking the house. I reached the place of the incident at 10-00 hours. It is true that, report, rojkam and all procedures in this regard were carried out at the place of the incident. It is not true that, Prakashsinh and Ranjitsinh denied to put their signatures. It is not true that, as I forced Prakashsinh and Ranjitsinh to put their signature and they denied for the same, I made phone call to the police. It is true that, after arrival of the police, Prakashsinh and Bharthaji put their signatures in presence of the police. It is not true that, their signatures were obtained by giving threat of the police. It is not true that, false bill of the house where Ranjitsinh is not dwelling, was given. It is true that, I have not dictated in my statement before the police or in the complaint that, “My staff held the said stick and they lifted brick of earth from the side and tried to assault us.” It is true that, there were two accused persons and we were fifteen persons. I have not arrested the accused. It is true that, I have not dictated in my complaint that, “The stick was snatched away from the accused.” It is not true that, false case has been filed against the accused. It is not true that, I had completed my entire procedure before raid.” [Emphasis supplied] 11.1 As referred hereinabove, much has been submitted by Mr. Thakor on the point that no document has been seized to show that the houses in question are of ownership or possession of the original accused. As discussed hereinabove, earlier also, at the same houses, surprise check was carried out and amount raised by UGVCL was deposited without any objection or protest and it was never challenged. In the present case also, surprise check was carried out at the same houses where it was carried out earlier. Moreover, as referred hereinabove, P.W No. 1-Mr. Patel Ramanbhai Madhavlal has admitted in his cross-examination that no document was seized nor any inquiry was made about the owner of the house. In the present case also, surprise check was carried out at the same houses where it was carried out earlier. Moreover, as referred hereinabove, P.W No. 1-Mr. Patel Ramanbhai Madhavlal has admitted in his cross-examination that no document was seized nor any inquiry was made about the owner of the house. He has also admitted that since Ranjitsinh refused to sign when first offence was allegedly committed, signature of his son Prakashsinh was taken and they were present in the second raid also. He has also admitted that there was only one electricity connection for all the three houses and when checking was conducted for the first time, same houses were there. He has also admitted that previous electricity connection stood in the name of Nenaji had got permanently disconnected. He has also admitted that house of Ranjitsinh was last from roadside and first house was closed from roadside and that when checking was first done, accused was not a consumer. Looking to the rojkam produced at Exh.67, he has admitted that house of the accused is about 30 feet from electricity pole and if any person gives information in respect of theft of electricity, its entry used to be made, however, nobody from Pilvai village made any report about theft of electricity by the accused on the date of incident. He has further admitted that 15 mtr wire was recovered from the house of Bharathji Nenaji. He has further admitted that there were two persons from the side of the accused and fifteen from the otherside and when Prakashsinh and Ranjitsinh went away by closing the house, no one was injured. 11.2 On a close scrutiny of the evidence of the complainant, it appears that houses of present accused persons are situated in a row having common entrance and no one was a consumer of UGVCL. It also appears that as they were indulging in theft of electricity, offence was registered against them prior to filing of present complaint and they admitted the same by making payment of the supplementary bill. Even though they made a contention that they were not consumers and had not committed any theft of electricity, however, receipt at Exh.83 produced on record proves about alleged theft. Even though they made a contention that they were not consumers and had not committed any theft of electricity, however, receipt at Exh.83 produced on record proves about alleged theft. Thus, in my view, if at all the complainant had admitted in his deposition recorded at Exh.16 that no documents pertaining to the ownership of the house had been seized, then also, for the reasons and discussion made hereinabove, it cannot be said that prosecution had not proved the ownership and occupation of the house and trial Judge had not considered the said important aspect. 12. Another witness examined by the prosecution is P.W No. 2-Patel Mukeshkumar Hargovinddas at Exh.87, who was also a member of the raiding party on 18.8.2009 He has deposed that when he along with his staff members namely, Mr. M.G Katara, Mr. R.P Suthar, Mr. D.V Raval, Deputy Engineer-Mr. R.M Patel of Kukarvada Sub Divisional Office and Deputy Engineer-Mr. D.B Patel of Ladol Sub Divisional Office had visited Pilvai village, theft of unauthorized electricity connection was found in the houses of Vihol Ranjitsinh Nenaji and Vihol Rajuji Nenaji situated on the left side of the road by joining black colour telephone wire with electric wire on the right side pole of the road. He has deposed that first house was closed and unauthorized consumption of electricity was taken in other two houses and when the raiding party reached, Vihol Ranjitsinh Nenaji became angry and tried to beat the officials with stick and brick and in the meantime, his son Vihol Prakashsinh Ranjitsinh pulled off additional black colour telephone wire through staircase. He has also deposed that Executive-Engineer as well as Police Inspector of Vijapur Police Station also came to the place on being informed and during that time, Vihol Ranjitsinh Nenaji and Vihol Prakashsinh Ranjitsinh locked their houses and left, however, at the intervention of Police Inspector, elder brother of Ranjitsinh namely, Bharathaji Nenaji and son of Ranjitsinh i.e. Prakashsinh remained present and houses were opened and checking was done and checking sheet No. 2701 dated 18.8.2009 was prepared on the spot which was signed by Bharathaji Nenaji and Prakashsinh Ranjitsinh along with rojkam and a complaint was lodged against the accused. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that they were 12-13 persons in number. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that they were 12-13 persons in number. On going through the evidence of this witness, fact of theft of electricity and attempt to attack the officials of raiding party have been proved by the prosecution. 13. The evidence of aforesaid two witnesses get support from the evidence of P.W No. 3-Patel Dineshbhai Bhagwandas examined at Exh.89 Nothing adverse came out from the cross-examination of this witness so as to weaken the case of the prosecution. 14. Panch witnesses namely, P.W No. 4-Vihol Rajuji Nathaji, of the panchanama of the place of offence, P.W No. 5-Kanuji Mulji Vihol of the panchanama of place of offence and P.W No. 6-Babaji Ramaji Rathod, panchnama of recovery of weapon i.e. stick, have been declared as hostile. 15. P.W No. 8-Shankarbhai Mavjibhai Kotwal, Exh.111, who is a Police Constable discharging his duty at G.E.B Police station, Sabarmati, has deposed that when the complainant came at 9.00 a.m on 21.8.2009 to file the complaint against the accused, he registered the complaint and handed over further investigation to Mr. M.M Solanki. 16. Maheshbhai Magabhai Solanki, police official has been examined as P.W No. 7 at Exh.103, who took over further investigation from Police Station Officer, Mr. S.M Kotwal and recorded statements of the complainant and other witnesses. He has admitted in his cross-examination that although the accused were not consumers of UGVCL, they had allegedly taken illegal electric connection directly from electric pole. He has admitted that he did not obtain any documentary evidence of ownership of the said house during investigation. He has also admitted that there was a distance of about 15 mtr between electric pole in question and houses in question but he did not measure the distance. 17. A defense has been taken by learned advocate for the accused by submitting that the houses in question were not of the ownership of the accused as there is no documentary evidence in that regard with the investigating officer and therefore, the accused require to be acquitted. However, on an evaluation of the evidence of the complainant and other raiding officers, as discussed at length hereinabove, it has been proved that even though the accused were not residing at the housed in question, they had paid the bill raised by UGVCL for theft of electricity. However, on an evaluation of the evidence of the complainant and other raiding officers, as discussed at length hereinabove, it has been proved that even though the accused were not residing at the housed in question, they had paid the bill raised by UGVCL for theft of electricity. Further, earlier in a similar case, bill of theft of electricity was issued against the accused, they had paid the amount of supplementary bill, receipt of which is produced at Exh.83 If they were not using the houses in question, they should not have paid the bills for theft of electricity as well as the supplementary bill raised by UGVCL without raising any objection. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that father of the original accused had taken the electricity connection at the same place and house, which was made permanently disconnected i.e. made PDF. All these clearly proved that the accused were using the raided houses and had committed theft of electricity, as discussed hereinabove. 18. Another Police Official, P.W No. 9-Balvantsinh Khumansinh Vaghela examined at Exh.113, has deposed that when he was discharging his duty as ASI at Vijapur Police station, complainant-Ramanbhai Madhabhai-Deputy Engineer of Kukarvada, Taluka Vijapur filed a complaint against the accused and papers were thereafter handed over by PSO. He took over said papers and drew panchanama of houses of incident in presence of two panchas from 17-30 hours to 18-00 hours on 18.8.2009 when the accused persons were not present and thereafter, statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded. He has further deposed that panchanama of seizure of deadly weapon from the accused was drawn on 4.9.2009 in presence of panchas and as notification of District Collector prohibiting possession of arms was in force at the time of the incident, the same was obtained and attached with investigation papers and report was made to add section 135 of the B.P Act. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not recorded further statement of the complainant. He has also admitted that the place of the incident was a public place surrounded by residential houses but statements of independent witnesses were not recorded. However, he voluntarily stated that as nobody was residing surrounding the place of the incident, statements of neighbouring persons could not be recorded. 19. He has also admitted that the place of the incident was a public place surrounded by residential houses but statements of independent witnesses were not recorded. However, he voluntarily stated that as nobody was residing surrounding the place of the incident, statements of neighbouring persons could not be recorded. 19. It is thus clear on an evaluation of the entire evidence of this witness that there were no residential houses around the place of incident and therefore, there was no question of any statement of any independent witnesses surrounding the place of incident being recorded. 20. As far as the submission of the learned advocate for the accused relying upon the cross-examination of the complainant that the complaint in question has been lodged, out of animosity is concerned, it is to be noted that the prosecution could not prove the alleged animosity the complainant had with the accused. Apart from that, witnesses namely, employees of UGVCL and police officials are giving true and correct versions of the incident and since they were discharging their duty in the capacity of government servants, they might not have any enmity with the accused and, therefore, their versions require to be believed as reliable, trustworthy and convincing. 21. So far as the submission of the learned advocate for the accused that combined trial for two separate complaints was illegal and untenable is concerned, it is required to be noted that prior to the incident in question, there was a theft of electricity by the accused and they had paid amount of the supplementary bill and the offence was settled as per Exh.82 This is indicative of the fact that the accused were committing theft of electricity from the date of registration of first offence although they were not consumers of UGVCL and therefore, they had paid the amount of supplementary bill without any objection or protest. Moreover, the complaints registered against the accused pertain to similar offences and therefore, there is no bar in trying both the offences together and hence, the said submission is ill-founded, as discussed above. 22. For constituting offence under section 135 of the Act, it is not necessary that the place of theft of electricity should be owned by the accused but it should be under possession of the accused. 22. For constituting offence under section 135 of the Act, it is not necessary that the place of theft of electricity should be owned by the accused but it should be under possession of the accused. In the cases on hand, the act of the accused in paying the amount of supplementary bill would lead to a presumption that the place in question was under their possession. Further, the aspect of possession was not denied by the accused, as discussed at length hereinabove. 23. From the entirety of facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that case against the accused has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through trustworthy, reliable and cogent evidence of complainant and other witnesses and therefore, the issues framed were rightly answered by the learned Special Judge and the accused were rightly convicted and sentenced for the offences charged against them by detailed findings. Since no illegality or irregularity as having committed by the learned Special Judge is noticed in the said findings, no interference is warranted by this Court in the present appeals. 24. This Court would have shown leniency in reduction of sentence had this been the first offence committed by the accused. However, looking to the fact that this is the second offence committed by the accused, they can be said to be habitual offenders and therefore, no leniency can be shown in reduction of sentence. In this connection, reference can be made to paragraph No. 20 of the decision rendered by this Court in Gopalbhai Chandubhai Rana (supra) relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for State, which reads as under: “20. As a result of the foregoing discussion, I do not think that this is a fit case for taking a lenient view and reducing the sentence as theft of electricity is ever increasing and it is a serious threat being faced by Electricity Boards all over the country and it is required to be curbed. As a result of the foregoing discussion, I do not think that this is a fit case for taking a lenient view and reducing the sentence as theft of electricity is ever increasing and it is a serious threat being faced by Electricity Boards all over the country and it is required to be curbed. It would be beneficial here to draw reference to the judgment delivered by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Jagmohan Mehatabsing Gujaral v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (1) G.L.R 643 wherein at paragraph 29 of the judgment as under: “Large-scale theft of electricity is a very alarming problem faced by all the State Electricity Boards in our country, which is causing loss to the State revenue running in hundreds of crores of rupees every year. In our considered view, after proper adjudication of the cases of all those who are found to be guilty of the offence of committing theft of electricity, apart from the sentence of conviction, the Court should invariable impose heavy fine, making theft of electricity a wholly non-profitable venture. The most effective step to curb this tendency perhaps could be to discontinue the supply of electricity to those consumers temporarily or permanently who have been caught extracting electricity in a clandestine manner on more than one occasion. The legislation may consider incorporating this suggestion as form of punishment by amending Sec.39 of the Electricity Act.1910”” 25. In view of the above, both these appeals being devoid of any merits deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The impugned common judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6.5.2016 passed in Special Electricity Case No. 6 of 2010 and Sessions Case No. 94 of 2010 by the learned Special Judge, Electricity, Mehsana, is hereby confirmed. The accused are reported to be on bail and hence, their bail bond shall stand cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the jail authorities within twelve weeks from today to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Records and proceedings are ordered to be sent back to the trial court forthwith.