Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 872 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. PRATAPBHAI PREMJI GOHEL

2022-07-18

ASHOKKUMAR C.JOSHI

body2022
JUDGMENT : ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J. 1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order passed in Special (Electricity Act) No. 9 of 2012, by the learned Special Judge (GEB) and District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar, dated 22.10.2013, recording acquittal of the Respondent- Original Accused-Pratapbhai Premji Gohel, who was charged with the offence punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of The Indian Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Electricity Act”). 2. The facts of the case briefly as summarized are that the Accused viz. Pratapbhai Premjibhai Gohil, was running one ice factory namely Jay Ambe Ice Factory and has obtained commercial electricity connection of Gujarat Electricity Board being Customer No. 85901/00847/8. That on 13.5.2011, while the inspection was carried at the factory of the accused, it was found that, in the electric meter, the accused, with the help of other person, connected external devise and because of that, the meter could not move properly. Thereby, the accused disturbed the reading parameter by connecting external device and has committed theft of electric energy amounting to Rs. 2,37,611.09. Hence, a complaint came to be lodged with Rajkot GEB Police Station, Rajkot, under the Electricity Act. On registering the offence against the accused, Investigating agency recorded the statements of the concerned members of the squad and on completing the investigation, found the present accused has committed the theft of electric supply. 3. On the basis of the said complaint, after thorough investigation as there was sufficient evidence against the present Respondent-Accused, charge sheet was filed against him. However, as the case was sessions triable by the learned Special Judge, hence, the same was registered as Special (GEB) Case No. 9 of 2012. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act. The Respondent-Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has thereafter laid evidence. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses as well as produced number of documentary evidences on record of the case. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge (GEB) and District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar, was pleased to acquit the Respondent-Accused from the offences punishable under Section 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses as well as produced number of documentary evidences on record of the case. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge (GEB) and District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar, was pleased to acquit the Respondent-Accused from the offences punishable under Section 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (GEB) and District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Special Case No. (Electricity) 9 of 2012, the Appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal. 5. Heard, learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the Appellant-State and learned Advocate Mr. P.M. Dave for the Respondent-Original Accused. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned APP submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned APP further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the Respondent. 7. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri referred to the judgment and order as well as the testimony of number of witnesses and also the documentary evidence. Learned APP has submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice, hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. It is further contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge is based on inference not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law and that the learned Special Judge ought to have seen that there are direct and indirect evidences connecting Respondent with crime produced in this case. In spite of the fact, learned Judge without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offence under the Electricity Act. She has therefore urged that the present Appeal may be allowed. In spite of the fact, learned Judge without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offence under the Electricity Act. She has therefore urged that the present Appeal may be allowed. 8. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has also submitted that the learned Special Judge has not properly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record and therefore has committed a grave error in acquitting the Respondent for the offence under the Electricity Act. Learned APP has further submitted that the learned Special Judge ought to have held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Respondent in a conclusive way and therefore ought to have convicted and sentenced the Respondent in consonance with law. Learned APP has submitted that the learned Special Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that there are direct and indirect evidences available on record connecting the Respondent with the crime in question. Learned APP has submitted that in the present case though the evidence of all the witnesses are reliable and trustworthy, without any cogent reason, the learned Special Judge has committed grave error by disbelieving and discarding the evidence of these witnesses and acquitting the Respondent for the offence charged against him. Learned APP has further submitted that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the seriousness and the gravity of the offences and should not have adopted a casual and routine approach and thus the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge has resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. Learned APP has further submitted that the learned Special Judge has not given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the Respondent. Learned APP has therefore submitted that the order of acquittal is illegal, improper and bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. On all such grounds, learned APP has contended that the learned Special Judge has committed error in appreciating the evidence. Therefore, this Court may reverse the judgment of the learned Special Judge from acquittal into conviction. On all such grounds, learned APP has contended that the learned Special Judge has committed error in appreciating the evidence. Therefore, this Court may reverse the judgment of the learned Special Judge from acquittal into conviction. Learned APP has also taken this Court to the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge coupled with appreciation of evidence and contended that the learned Special Judge has committed error in appreciation of evidence. 9. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. P.M. Dave for the Respondent- Original Accused has heavily contended that the captioned amount is already paid prior to the conclusion of the trial. Further, the witnesses have not supported in accordance with the elements of complaint and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly endorsed the acquittal of the Respondent-Original Accused and urged that this Hon’ble Court may not interfere with the same and therefore prayed to dismiss the Appeal preferred by the Appellant-State of Gujarat. 10. In view of the rival submissions made by the learned APP for the Appellant State and the learned Advocate for the Respondent-Original Accused, it is required to be considered whether the impugned judgment and order can be sustained. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned APP and learned Advocate for the Respondent- Original Accused, before this Court advert to the merits of the case, it would be worthwhile to refer to the scope of this Appeal. 10.1 Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be worthwhile to refer to the scope of interference in acquittal appeals. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 10.2 Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 10.2 Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrive at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person, and therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. 10.3 Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. That the duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused is connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. 11. In Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Represented through Legal Representatives vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 752 , the Apex Court has observed that: “The presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused gets fortified and strengthened when the said accused is acquitted by the trial Court. Probably, for this reason, the law makers felt that when the appeal is to be filed in the High Court it should not be filed as a matter of course or as matter of right but leave of the High Court must be obtained before the appeal is entertained. This would not only prevent the High Court from being flooded with appeals but more importantly would ensure that innocent persons who have already faced the tribulation of a long drawn out criminal trial are not again unnecessarily dragged to the High Court.” 12. This would not only prevent the High Court from being flooded with appeals but more importantly would ensure that innocent persons who have already faced the tribulation of a long drawn out criminal trial are not again unnecessarily dragged to the High Court.” 12. Yet in another decision in Chaman Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 SCC Online SC 988 [Criminal Appeal No. 1229 of 2017 on 03.12.2020] the Apex Court has observed as under: “9.1 In the case of Babu vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 , this Court had reiterated the principles to be followed in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 12 to 19, it is observed and held as under: 12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. [Vide: Balak Ram vs. State of U.P. (1975) 3 SCC 219 , Shambhoo Missir vs. State of Bihar, (1990) 4 SCC 17 , Shailendra Pratap vs. State of U.P. (2003) 1 SCC 761 , Narendra Singh vs. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699 , Budh Singh vs. State of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 731 , State of U.P. vs. Ram Veer Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 102 , S. Rama Krishna vs. S. Rami Reddy, (2008) 5 SCC 535 , Arulvelu vs. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 , Perla Somasekhara Reddy vs. State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC 98 and Ram Singh vs. State of H.P. (2010) 2 SCC 445 ] 13. In Sheo Swarup vs. King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 , the Privy Council observed as under: (IA p. 404) “.....the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.” 14. The aforesaid principle of law has consistently been followed by this Court. [See: Tulsiram Kanu vs. State, AIR 1954 SC 1 , Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216 , M.G. Agarwal vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 , Khedu Mohton vs. State of Bihar, (1970) 2 SCC 450 , Sambasivan vs. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 , Bhagwan Singh vs. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85 and State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 ] 15. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , this Court reiterated the legal position as under: (SCC p. 432, Para 42) “(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as “substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes” etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 16. In Ghurey Lal vs. State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450 , this Court reiterated the said view, observing that the appellate court in dealing with the cases in which the trial courts have acquitted the accused, should bear in mind that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. The appellate court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court as the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses, and was in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. 17. In State of Rajasthan vs. Naresh, (2009) 9 SCC 368 , the Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that: (SCC p. 374, Para-20) “20.....an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused.” 18. In State of U.P. vs. Banne, (2009) 4 SCC 271 , this Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which the Court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The circumstances include: (SCC p. 286, Para-28) “(i) The High Court’s decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position. (ii) The High Court’s conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record. (iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice. (iv) The High Court’s judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case. (ii) The High Court’s conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record. (iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice. (iv) The High Court’s judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case. (v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court. (vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal.” A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Dhanapal vs. State, (2009) 10 SCC 401 . 19. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.” 9.2 When the findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse has been dealt with and considered in paragraph 20 of the aforesaid decision, which reads as under: “20. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against the weight of evidence” or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. [Vide: Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC 635 , Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority vs. Gopi Nath and Sons, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 312, Triveni Rubber and Plastics vs. CCE, 1994 Supp. [Vide: Rajinder Kumar Kindra vs. Delhi Administration, (1984) 4 SCC 635 , Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority vs. Gopi Nath and Sons, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 312, Triveni Rubber and Plastics vs. CCE, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 665, Gaya Din vs. Hanuman Prasad, (2001) 1 SCC 501 , Aruvelu vs. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 and Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao vs. State of A.P. (2009) 10 SCC 636 ].” (Emphasis supplied) 9.3 It is further observed, after following the decision of this Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10 , that if a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. 9.4 In the recent decision of Vijay Mohan Singh vs. State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436 , this Court again had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 378 Cr.P.C. and the interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. This Court considered catena of decisions of this Court right from 1952 onwards. In paragraph 31, it is observed and held as under: “31. An identical question came to be considered before this Court in Umedbhai Jadavbhai (1978) 1 SCC 228 . In the case before this Court, the High Court interfered with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record. However, the High Court, while reversing the acquittal, did not consider the reasons given by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused. Confirming the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed and held in Para-10 as under: (SCC p. 233) “10. Once the appeal was rightly entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court was entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High Court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. Once the appeal was rightly entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court was entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High Court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. This rule will not be applicable in the present case where the Sessions Judge has made an absolutely wrong assumption of a very material and clinching aspect in the peculiar circumstances of the case.” 31.1. In Sambasivan vs. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 , the High Court reversed the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and held the accused guilty on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, however, the High Court did not record its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. Confirming the order passed by the High Court convicting the accused on reversal of the acquittal passed by the learned trial court, after being satisfied that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court was perverse and suffered from infirmities, this Court declined to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the High Court. While confirming the order of conviction passed by the High Court, this Court observed in Para-8 as under: (SCC p. 416) “8. We have perused the judgment under appeal to ascertain whether the High Court has conformed to the aforementioned principles. We find that the High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner laid down by this Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 viz. first recording its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable, which alone will justify interference in an order of acquittal though the High Court has rendered a well-considered judgment duly meeting all the contentions raised before it. But then will this noncompliance per se justify setting aside the judgment under appeal? We think, not. But then will this noncompliance per se justify setting aside the judgment under appeal? We think, not. In our view, in such a case, the approach of the court which is considering the validity of the judgment of an appellate court which has reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, should be to satisfy itself if the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably unsustainable and whether the judgment of the appellate court is free from those infirmities; if so to hold that the trial court judgment warranted interference. In such a case, there is obviously no reason why the appellate court’s judgment should be disturbed. But if on the other hand the court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity, it cannot but be held that the interference by the appellate court in the order of acquittal was not justified; then in such a case the judgment of the appellate court has to be set aside as of the two reasonable views, the one in support of the acquittal alone has to stand. Having regard to the above discussion, we shall proceed to examine the judgment of the trial court in this case.” 31.2. In K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan vs. State of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 309 , after observing that though there is some substance in the grievance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that the High Court has not adverted to all the reasons given by the trial Judge for according an order of acquittal, this Court refused to set aside the order of conviction passed by the High Court after having found that the approach of the Sessions Judge in recording the order of acquittal was not proper and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge on several aspects was unsustainable. This Court further observed that as the Sessions Judge was not justified in discarding the relevant/material evidence while acquitting the accused, the High Court, therefore, was fully entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and record its own conclusion. This Court scrutinised the evidence of the eyewitnesses and opined that reasons adduced by the trial court for discarding the testimony of the eyewitnesses were not at all sound. This Court scrutinised the evidence of the eyewitnesses and opined that reasons adduced by the trial court for discarding the testimony of the eyewitnesses were not at all sound. This Court also observed that as the evaluation of the evidence made by the trial court was manifestly erroneous and therefore it was the duty of the High Court to interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 31.3. In Atley vs. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807 , in Para-5, this Court observed and held as under: (AIR pp. 809-810) “5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the trial court being one of acquittal, the High Court should not have set it aside on mere appreciation of the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution unless it came to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial Judge was perverse. In our opinion, it is not correct to say that unless the appellate court in an appeal under Section 417 Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that the judgment of acquittal under appeal was perverse it could not set aside that order. It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence. It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal. If the appellate court reviews the evidence, keeping those principles in mind, and comes to a contrary conclusion, the judgment cannot be said to have been vitiated. If the appellate court reviews the evidence, keeping those principles in mind, and comes to a contrary conclusion, the judgment cannot be said to have been vitiated. (See in this connection the very cases cited at the Bar, namely, Surajpal Singh vs. State, AIR 1952 SC 52 and Wilayat Khan vs. State of U.P. AIR 1953 SC 122 . In our opinion, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the High Court was not justified in reviewing the entire evidence and coming to its own conclusions. 31.4. In K. Gopal Reddy vs. State of A.P. (1979) 1 SCC 355 , this Court has observed that where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, it is the obvious duty of the High Court to interfere in the interest of justice, lest the administration of justice be brought to ridicule.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. The prosecution has testified PW-1 Hiteshbhai Hiralal Jungi at Exh.11. He appears to be the panch witness. He turned hostile. Therefore, he has not supported the case of the Prosecution. Prosecution has testified PW-2-Nileshbhai Rameshbhai Gohel at Exh.13. He also appears to be the panch witness. He also turned hostile and he has not supported the Prosecution Case. The Prosecution has also testified PW-3 Bhagwanjibhai Punabhai Rada at Exh.14. He appears to be Deputy Engineer at Udyognagar Sub-Division from the year 2009. He tried to depose in accordance with the complaint including issued the bill of Rs.2,37,611.09. He has also tendered the complaint at Exh.15 and the certificate for theft at Exh.16 and approval letter at Exh.17 and the Supplementary Bill at Exh.18 and also Joint Testing Report at Exh.19, checking sheet at Exh.22, checking report at Exh.23, seizure memo at Exh.24, reading report at Exh.25, Rojkam at Exh.26 and MIR report at Exh.27 but in cross-examination, he has also admitted that he has not carried out the examination of the so-called meter in the government approved laboratory and it was only carried out in the PGVCL lab. He has also admitted that in between 26.2.2011 and 13.5.2011 he has not availed any information so longer as any illegality is concerned. It is also admitted that supplementary bill does not contain any date. He has also admitted that in between 26.2.2011 and 13.5.2011 he has not availed any information so longer as any illegality is concerned. It is also admitted that supplementary bill does not contain any date. Further, on 23.6.2011 there was no report available for the examination of the so-called meter. Further, it is also admitted that the Respondent-Accused Person has also paid all the amount as mentioned in the supplementary bill. Further, it is also admitted that no such report is annexed to the laboratory is produced. 13.1 The Prosecution has testified PW-4 Kumudben Akshaykumar Swaminarayan at Exh.29. She appears to be Junior Engineer in the year 2011. She tried to depose as per her official duty but in cross-examination she has admitted that no substance was found so longer as examination of the meter is concerned. It is also admitted that the wiring of the meter was as per the parameters of the PGVCL. It is also admitted that no particular electric device is used to arrive at the allegations levelled against the Respondent-Original Accused. Therefore, at this juncture, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Special Judge has rightly arrived at the acquittal of the Respondent-Original Accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13.2 The Prosecution has also testified PW-5 Satyanarayanbhai Suryanarayanbhai at Exh.31. He appears to be the Assistant Manager in L&T Company. In cross-examination, he has stated that he has no knowledge so longer as Exh.16 is concerned. It is also admitted that whether the meter was hanged or not, same is also not recorded. 13.3 The Prosecution has also examined PW-6-Rajeshpuri Sompuri Goswami at Exh.34. He appears to be Junior Engineer at Porbandar Sub-Division. He tried to depose in accordance with his official duty but in cross-examination he has admitted that it has not come to his notice that the meter was hanged. He has also admitted that he did not find any other device near or outside the meter which may affect the working of the meter or obstruct the working of the meter. 13.4 The Prosecution has also testified PW-7 Dilipbhai Bhikhubhai Kodiyatar at Exh.38. He appears to be Deputy Engineer. He tried to depose in accordance with his official duties but in his cross-examination it is admitted that he has no knowledge about the time period of installation of the meter. 13.4 The Prosecution has also testified PW-7 Dilipbhai Bhikhubhai Kodiyatar at Exh.38. He appears to be Deputy Engineer. He tried to depose in accordance with his official duties but in his cross-examination it is admitted that he has no knowledge about the time period of installation of the meter. He has no knowledge about the checking of meter. In short, this witness also has not supported the case of the Prosecution in toto. 13.5 The Prosecution has also testified PW-8 Rajveersinh Sahdevsinh Jadeja at Exh.39. He was Deputy Engineer at the respective time. He tried to depose in accordance with his official duty. In cross-examination he has admitted that he has not seized any device near the meter or outside the meter. Further, he has not recovered any instrument which may obstruct the meter electric supply. He has also admitted that after one year and four months, his statement was recorded. 13.6 The prosecution has also testified PW-9 Madhukarbhai Pravinchandra Erda at Exh.40. He appears to be one of the member of the checking party but in his cross-examination he has admitted that the meter was not taken from the respective place. On the contrary he deposed in cross-examination that since the seal and wiring was proper, during checking he has not found any circuit or any device or any substance which may obstruct the meter. 13.7 The prosecution has also examined PW-10 Mahendrabhai Paljibhai Chauhan at Exh.41. He appears to be PSO at the respective time. He has admitted in cross-examination that the complainant has not given any reason or explanation for delay in registration of the offence. 13.8 The Prosecution has also testified PW-11 Gajendrasinh Kaluba Vada at Exh.44. He appears to be PSI at the respective time. He tried to depose in accordance with his official duty but in cross-examination he has also joined with the earlier witnesses that he has not availed any instruments or substance which can adversely affect the so-called meter. 13.9 On all such grounds, the learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the Respondent/ Original Accused, and, in the opinion of this Court, there is no need to interfere in the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (G.E.B.) and District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar. Further, it is observed that the captioned order which is under challenge is neither perverse nor capricious and also not arbitrary and illegal. Further, it is observed that the captioned order which is under challenge is neither perverse nor capricious and also not arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere in the same and the learned Special Judge (G.E.B.) and District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar has rightly acquitted the Respondent/Original Accused for the offence under the Indian Electricity Act. 14. Thus, on re-appreciation and reevaluation of the ocular and the documentary evidence on record, as referred to herein above, it transpires that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Special Judge has observed that on considering the evidence on record there appears no trustworthy evidence on record to prove the charge against the accused and the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence alleged are not fulfilled. This Court has gone through in detail the impugned judgment and order and found that the learned Special Judge has meticulously considered the depositions of all the witnesses and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the Respondent-Original Accused beyond reasonable doubt and in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Special Judge has rightly come to such a conclusion, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against Respondent-Original Accused. The findings recorded by the learned trial Judge do not call for any interference. Resultantly, in fleri, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. Impugned judgment and order dated 22.10.2013, passed in Special (Electricity Act) Case No. 9 of 2012 by the learned Special Judge (GEB) and District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar, recording acquittal is confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. R&P, if received, be transmitted back forthwith.