JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel for the parties have consented to dispose this appeal on merits as the record of the trial Court is available. 2. Heard Shri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Satya Bhusan Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 3 and perused the record. 3. The instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the Sub Divisional Officer, 33/11 K.V. City Power House, Electricity Distribution Sub-division-I, Hardoi against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Special Judge/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Criminal Case No. 34 of 2009 (State vs. Brijesh Kumar Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 2672 of 2007, under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi, whereby the trial Court had acquitted the accused persons of the charges framed under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act. 4. The brief facts giving arise to the instant appeal are to the tune that one Virendra Kumar Sharma, Sub Divisional Officer-I, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Hardoi had given a written information to the S.H.O. of Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi stating therein that the accused Brijesh Kumar Gupta has been sanctioned a load of 225 KW at his electricity unit situated at B-5 Industrial Area, Hardoi and on 23.08.2007, Shri Nirankar Gupta, Executive Engineer Parikshan, Hardoi and Shri Harishanker Agrawal, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-II, Hardoi had inspected the above-mentioned Electricity Meter No. U.P.E. 64210 and found the seal of the same tampered and after sealing the meter in the presence of the representative of the consumer the same was sent for investigation to M/s Secure Meter Ltd. and as per the report of the M/s Secure Meter Ltd. submitted vide letter dated 06.10.2007, the seal of the meter was found tampered. 5. On the basis of above application, a Criminal Case bearing Case Crime No. 2672 of 2007 was registered against accused Brijesh Kumar Gupta and the investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Shri Rajesh Singh, who after investigation of the case filed the charge-sheet against the respondents for committing the offence under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act. 6. The charge against the accused persons was framed under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act, however, the accused persons have denied the charges and claimed trial. 6. The charge against the accused persons was framed under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act, however, the accused persons have denied the charges and claimed trial. One of the accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Gupta had died during the course of trial and proceedings against him were abated by the trial Court. 7. The prosecution in order to prove its case had produced following witnesses:- P.W.-1/Virendra Kumar Sharma, Sub-Divisional Officer, Hardoi, P.W.-2/Nirankar Gupta, Executive Engineer Parikshan, Hardoi, P.W.-3/Pawan Kumar, Assistant Engineer (Meters), Hardoi, P.W.-4/Abha Jaiswal, Writer, Chick F.I.R., P.W.-5/Rajesh Singh, S.I. (Investigating Officer), P.W.-6/Harishanker Agrawal, Executive Engineer, P.W.-7/Virendra Solanki, Technical Assistant. 8. Apart from the above-mentioned witnesses, the prosecution has also relied on the following documentary evidence:- ‘Tehrir’ (Exhibit-ka-1), Investigation of Meter and letter related to analysis report, (Exhibit-ka-2), Sealing Certificate (Exhibit-ka-3), Chik F.I.R. (Exhibit-ka-4), Site Map (Exhibit-ka-5), Charge-sheet (Exhibit-ka-6), letter related to analysis report, (Exhibit-ka-7). 9. After closure of the evidence by the prosecution the statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the evidence of the prosecution and claimed themselves innocent and in their defence has produced a carbon copy of the installation certificate of the meter dated 13.07.2007 and carbon copy of meter reading as well as the certified copy of the statement of P.W.-5/S.I. Rajesh Singh recorded in Criminal Case No. 55 of 2009 decided on 28.07.2015. 10. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record has found that the trial Court has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, acquitted the accused persons of the charges framed under Section 135 Indian Electricity Act. 11. The Electricity Department feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order had preferred this appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant while referring to the judgment of the trial Court submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in right perspective and has given much weightage to the minor and insignificant contradictions and thus, the judgment and order of the trial Court is based on ‘surmises and conjectures’. 13. It is also submitted that it was not disputed that the meter was checked at the premises of the respondents on 23.08.2007 and was also sent to M/s Secure Meter Ltd. for testing, but the trial Court has ignored this important aspect of the matter. 13. It is also submitted that it was not disputed that the meter was checked at the premises of the respondents on 23.08.2007 and was also sent to M/s Secure Meter Ltd. for testing, but the trial Court has ignored this important aspect of the matter. It is further submitted that the trial Court has given much weightage to the fact that the room wherein the meter was installed was in the possession of the electricity department and the respondents-accused persons were not in a position to tamper the meter, but the above finding of the trial Court is based on hypothetical assumptions and the same is not based on any evidence available on record. 14. It is further submitted that the opinion of the trial Court that copy of the sealing certificate was not given to the respondents or to their representatives is not correct and having regard to the fact that when the meter has been found tampered, it is to be presumed that the respondents-accused persons were the beneficiary of the tampering and, therefore, they should have been convicted and sentenced accordingly, but the trial court has failed to take into account the relevant facts and evidence available on record. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards various observations of the trial Court and has submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in right perspective. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents-accused persons on the other hand submits that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or to say any irregularity in appreciation of the evidence as it was manifestly clear before the trial Court that the room wherein the meter was installed, was in the absolute possession of the electricity department and, therefore, the respondents-accused persons were not in a position to tamper the meter and thus there is no error in the finding recorded by the trial Court as well as the copy of sealing certificate was never given to the respondents-accused persons or their representatives, which belies the story of surprise inspection. 17. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the trial Court has recorded the judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the department has never made allegation that the tampering of the meter has been done by the respondents-accused persons and the room wherein the electricity meter was installed was under exclusive possession of the electricity department and a lock of the department was also installed thereon and the only key of that lock was always kept with the officers of the electricity department and also that neither the lock of the room was ever broken nor the wall of the room was broken and, therefore, the respondents-accused persons were not in a position to enter the room and tamper the meter moreso when the seal on the box, wherein the meter was kept, was also found intact. 18. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record has also recorded a finding that 03 days before the inspection made by the Electricity Department Authorities, the prosecution witness nos. 1 to 3 had entered into the room where the electricity meter was installed and found meter in good condition and also that the sealing certificate was not provided to the consumer/respondents and a copy of the sealing certificate was sent to the consumer through courier was also not correct and, therefore, the story of the prosecution with regard to the tampering of the electricity meter by respondents has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 19. The Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418 wherein the accused was acquitted by the trial Court but was convicted by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal filed by the State. The aggrieved accused approached Apex Court. It was contended by him that there were 'no compelling reasons' for setting aside the order of acquittal and due and proper weight had not been given by the High Court to the opinion of the trial Court as regards the credibility of witnesses seen and examined by him. The aggrieved accused approached Apex Court. It was contended by him that there were 'no compelling reasons' for setting aside the order of acquittal and due and proper weight had not been given by the High Court to the opinion of the trial Court as regards the credibility of witnesses seen and examined by him. It was also contended that the High Court committed an error of law and the Hon'ble Supreme Court found substance in the argument that when a strong 'prima facie' case is made out against an accused person it is his duty to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and he cannot take shelter behind the presumption of innocence and cannot state that the law entitles him to keep his lips sealed. It was further held that in an appeal, the High Court had full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded … 20. Upholding the contention, it has also been held in para 6 as under ; "We think this criticism is well-founded. After an order of acquittal has been made, the presumption of innocence is further reinforced by that order, and that being so, the trial court's decision can be reversed not on the ground that the accused had failed to explain the circumstances appearing against him but only for very substantial and compelling reasons." 21. After an order of acquittal has been made, the presumption of innocence is further reinforced by that order, and that being so, the trial court's decision can be reversed not on the ground that the accused had failed to explain the circumstances appearing against him but only for very substantial and compelling reasons." 21. In the case of Sanwat Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715 after placing the reliance on the judgment given by Privy Council in Sheo Swarup and others vs. The King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) and many other authroities Hon'ble the Apex Court on the point in issue held as under:- "Para 16-The foregoing discussion yields the following results: (1) an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup's case afford a correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court, such as, (i) "substantial and compelling reasons", (ii) "good and sufficiently cogent reasons", and (iii) "strong reasons" are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified". 22. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2016 Crlj 1908 has considered this difference and has observed as under: “18 Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 has held: “The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal." 19. This Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order is imperative." 23. If the appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order is imperative." 23. From the above decisions some general principles which may emerged out are that the appellate court is having full power to review or re-appreciate or reconsider the evidence upon which the order/judgment of acquittal has been based and there is no limitation, restriction in exercise of such power by the appellate court and the appellate court may reach at it is own conclusion on the same set of evidence, both on question of facts as well as on law. However, it is to be kept in mind that in case of acquittal, the presumption of innocence which was initially with the accused persons has been fortified, reaffirmed, strengthened and also the golden principle which runs through the Web of criminal jurisprudence is that if two reasonable and logical conclusions can be derived on the basis of evidence on record the appellate court should not normally disturb the finding of the trial court. But simultaneously it is also to be kept in mind that the benefit of only a reasonable doubt can be given to accused persons in a criminal trial. The accused persons cannot claim the benefit of each and every doubt. To get the benefit of a doubt the same has to pass the test of reasonableness and a reasonable doubt is a doubt which emerges out of the evidence itself. 24. I have considered the evidence of the prosecution available on record and have found that it is admitted to the prosecution witnesses that the room wherein the meter was installed was in the absolute and exclusive possession of the electricity department. The lock at the room was also installed by the electricity department and key of the lock was also kept with the department. 25. It is also admitted to the prosecution witnesses that neither this lock was broken nor any part of the room wherein the meter was installed was damaged and, therefore, there was no possibility for any person to have entered into the room and tampered the electricity meter. 25. It is also admitted to the prosecution witnesses that neither this lock was broken nor any part of the room wherein the meter was installed was damaged and, therefore, there was no possibility for any person to have entered into the room and tampered the electricity meter. Significantly, one of the prosecution witness i.e. P.W.-1/Virendra Kumar Sharma has categorically admitted that few days ago when the reading of the meter was taken then the seal of the box wherein the meter was installed was broken and on the date of inspection three seals placed on the box wherein the meter was installed, were found intact and were broken to check the meter, which means that when the inspection was done the seals of the electricity department was intact on the box wherein the meter was installed and it was after breaking this seal the meter was taken out for the purpose of checking. It is, thus, an admitted fact that the seal installed on the box wherein the electricity meter was installed was neither broken nor found tampered. 26. Thus, it is not clear how the respondents may be in a position to tamper the meter. It is also admitted to the prosecution witnesses that 03 days before the inspection the readings of the meter was taken and no tampering, etc. of the meter or its seal was found and three days thereafter i.e. on 23.08.2007 the official/officers of the electricity department had again gone to inspect the same meter, reading of which they have already taken three days back and this castes a doubt about the reliability of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses also reveal that they have admitted categorical terms that without breaking the seal of the box wherein the meter has been installed, the meter could not be tampered and nothing has been stated by these witnesses in order to project as to how and what manner the electricity meter could be tampered when it was in absolute possession and control of the electricity department. 27. 27. I would not like to deal the other points pertaining to the non providing of the copy of sealing certificate to respondents or their representative as in the considered opinion of this Court, the prime duty and obligation of the prosecution was to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the seal which was placed on the box wherein the meter was installed as well as on the meter was broken by the respondents-accused persons and thereafter the meter was tampered. The contention of the prosecution witnesses that three days before the surprised inspection they have taken the reading of the meter and found the seals intact also castes a doubt as to what prompted them to again inspect the same meter of which they have taken the reading just three days ago. It is also established that the room wherein the meter was installed in a box was in the exclusive possession and control of the electricity department and the key of the lock installed on its door was kept by the department. Thus, there was no occasion for the respondents to have tampered the meter, specially in the background of the fact that seals on the box wherein the meter was installed were also found intact. 28. Having considered all the evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that the observations of the trial Court that the respondents-accused persons were not in a position to tamper the electricity meter is based on the evidence available on record and the same could not be termed as either based on ‘surmises and conjectures’. 29. In the considered opinion of this Court, the view which has been adopted by the trial Court could not be termed either unreasonable or perverse or against the evidence available on record. 29. In the considered opinion of this Court, the view which has been adopted by the trial Court could not be termed either unreasonable or perverse or against the evidence available on record. It has to be recalled that every accused person is having presumption of innocence in his favour and the same is fortified by his acquittal, so very strong and cogent grounds are required for interfering in the judgment of acquittal while in this case having regard to above mentioned facts, evidence and legal position, I am of the considered view that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt before the trial Court and the view which has been taken by the trial Court could not be termed as either perverse or unreasonable rather the view adopted by the trial Court is a possible and probable view, which is emerging from the evidence made available on record. 30. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the instant appeal filed by the appellant under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.10.2017 lacks merit and it is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the trial Court dated 25.10.2017 is, hereby, affirmed. 31. Record of the trial Court be transmitted to the lower court along with a copy of instant judgment, forthewith.