Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 815 (RAJ)

Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Sohan Lal S/o Kalu Ram Jat

2017-03-25

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Special Judge Electricity Cases, Hanumangarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in criminal case No. 43/2010 (CIA No. 15/14), whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent Sohanlal from the charges punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 2. The trial court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the premises, where the Officers of the Electricity Department have detected electricity theft, was in possession and ownership of the accused-respondent. The trial court has further observed that initially the FIR was filed against owner of the premises Sandeep Kumar and in VCR prepared by the Officers of the Electricity Department, the accused-respondent Sohanlal was shown as servant of the owner of the premises Sandeep Kumar. The trial court has also observed that it appears that prosecution has falsely implicated the accused-respondent with the intention to shield real accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution has sufficiently proved that the accused-respondent was involved in electricity theft as he has put his signature on the VCR sheet. It is also contended that as the accused-respondent was in possession of the premises, where the electricity theft was detected. The investigating agency filed charge-sheet against him under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and the trial court has rightly charged him for the said offence. 4. It is also contended that the prosecution has clearly proved the involvement of the accused-respondent in commission of the offence for which he was charged and the trial court has grossely erred in acquitting the accused-respondent from the aforesaid charge vide impugned judgment. 5. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused-respondent was in possession of the premises on the day when the electricity department had inspected the same and he was the owner of the said premises. The trial court has rightly observed that the investigating officer has failed to investigate from the neighbors about the exclusive possession of the accused-respondent of the premises. The trial court has rightly observed that the investigating officer has failed to investigate from the neighbors about the exclusive possession of the accused-respondent of the premises. The Officers of the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, who had inspected the site on the day of the alleged incident, appeared as prosecution witnesses, however, all the said officers have specifically stated in their statements that the accused-respondent was the servant of the owner and none of the prosecution witnesses has claimed that the accused-respondent was in possession and owner-ship of the said premises. 6. Consequently, the appeal is bereft of any merit and the same is therefore dismissed.