JUDGMENT : (Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.) 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10/12/2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Special Case No.136 of 2007, whereby, the learned Special Judge has acquitted the original accused respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”). 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under : 2.1 The complainant Dy. Engineer, Shri Gajanand Madhubhai Savani of Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., had filed a complaint against respondent accused before Bhavnagar Police Station, vide CR No.II-904/2004 for the alleged offence under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. According to complainant, it is the case of the prosecution that, on 24/08/2004, Dy. Engineer, Shri Gajanand Madhubhai Savani of PGVCL, Dhrangadhra Town Sub Division and Shri K.R. Snehkunj, Dy. Engineer, Circle Office, Surendranagar city had carried out inspection at the premises of Mansukhbhai Amarshibhai Makwana situated in Mayurnagar, Dhragandhra city, who was tenant and occupier of Pradipkumar P. Dave in the presence of his son Deepakbhai. According to complainant, it is the case of prosecution that at the time of inspection, respondent had tempered with meter seal and thereby committed theft of electricity of Rs.1,53,150.08 ps. Therefore, Raiding Officer, had prepared necessary Rojkam, issued inspection report, recovered muddamal meter and produced before GEB Office for the purpose of inspection. Therefore, on the basis of Inspection Report and Rojkam, supplementary bill of Rs.1,53,150.08 ps. was prepared and issued to respondent, which was not paid by him within stipulated time limit and therefore, written complaint was filed before Bhavnagar Police Station for the alleged theft of electricity, vide CR No.II- 904/2004 for the alleged offence under Section 135 of The Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 2.2 The police recorded statement of witnesses, and as there was sufficient evidence connecting respondent with crime produced in this case, charge-sheet was filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar and numbered as Criminal Case No.1211/2004. 2.2 The police recorded statement of witnesses, and as there was sufficient evidence connecting respondent with crime produced in this case, charge-sheet was filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar and numbered as Criminal Case No.1211/2004. The offence committed by respondent was absolutely triable by the court of learned Special Judge, the same was committed to the court of learned Special Judge, Surendranagar, which was numbered as Special (Ele.) Case No. 136/2007. Thereafter, respondent was ordered to issue with summons and after service of summons, respondent appeared before the Court, wherein he had not pleaded guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. Before trial, prosecution had examined complainant, police witnesses and panch witnesses who were supporting the case of prosecution. 2.3 At the end of trial, the learned Judge after appreciating necessary evidence laid dawn by prosecution acquitted the respondent by his judgment and order of acquittal dated 10/12/2009 for the offences with which he was charged. 2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal dated 10/12/2009, passed by the court of learned Special Judge, Surendranagar in Special (Ele.) Case No.136 of 2007, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr.Viral Vyas, appearing on behalf of Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent – original accused. 4. Learned APP Mr.Brahmbhatt has submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is contrary to law, evidence on record and against the settled principles of law and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence produced on record. He has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts by leading cogent and material evidence against the respondent accused, however, the trial court has failed to appreciate the same while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence produced on record. He has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts by leading cogent and material evidence against the respondent accused, however, the trial court has failed to appreciate the same while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has further submitted that the trial court was not justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal on the ground that though there was sufficient material against the respondent accused to prove the charge under Section 135 of the Act as there was huge loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,53,150.08p., for which, supplementary bill was also issued, however, without appreciating all these aspects, the trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned APP Mr.Brahmbhatt has urged that the even otherwise, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is bad in law, erroneous, illegal and unjust and the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the present appeal be allowed. 5. As against that, learned advocate Mr.Viral Vyas appearing on behalf of Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent accused, has submitted that the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal since the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the present respondent accused by leading cogent and material evidence. In fact, it was the preliminary duty of the complainant to establish the case against the respondent accused beyond reasonable doubts. Herein the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the respondent accused and therefore, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. In fact, it was the preliminary duty of the complainant to establish the case against the respondent accused beyond reasonable doubts. Herein the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the respondent accused and therefore, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has further submitted that at the time of carrying out raid at the premises, which was not in occupation and/or possession of the present respondent accused, no material was collected by the complainant or the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as to whether the present respondent was tenant of the said premises or whether he was in occupation and/or possession of the said premises, and therefore, no cogent and material evidence was led by the prosecution before the trial court and thus, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has also further submitted that one of the witnesses namely, Deepakbhai, son of the present respondent accused, was present at the time of carrying out raid of the said premises, however, neither the said Deepakbhai is shown as a witness nor he has been examined during the course of trial and therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges levelled against the present respondent accused and therefore, the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has submitted that on the contrary, the prosecution had moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to add owner of the said premises namely, Pradipkumar P. Dave as an accused but, unfortunately, the said application never proceeded further and the prosecution had not taken proper care to add concerned person as an accused and therefore, the trial court has not committed any error namely manifest error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present appeal. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas has urged that the present appeal be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court be confirmed. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas has urged that the present appeal be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court be confirmed. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone through the evidence recorded by the trial court and I have also carefully examined the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The questions arise for determination in the present appeal is that, whether the trial court has committed any error while appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, whether the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. It appears from the record that, on 24/08/2004, at the time of raid, neither the owner of the premises nor the present respondent accused was present at the said premises and merely one Deepakbhai, the so-called son of the respondent accused was present. Infact, it is the case of the present respondent that he is not having any son by name Deepakbhai, then how the prosecution has gathered such facts that son of the present respondent accused was present and in his presence the raid of the premises was carried out. It is an undisputed fact that though the electricity connection was in the name of Pradipkumar Dave against whom the complainant had issued supplementary bill and also FIR was filed against him, however, surprisingly, the chargesheet was filed against the present respondent accused and thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to collect the evidence as to whether the present respondent accused was a tenant of the said premises or was in possession/occupation of the said premises or was carrying any activity of operating machinery or running any business in the said premises. The prosecution has not collected any material against the respondent accused while drawing the panchnama of the premises at the spot at the time of checking and having recorded that in the presence of one Deepakbhai, they had drawn the panchnama and they had raided the premises and they had found that the electricity meter was tampered and thereby the occupant of the premises was abstracting the electric energy and committed theft to the tune of Rs.1,53,150.08p., for which, no material has come on record and there was no any laboratory report produced on record as to whether the meter was tampered by any artificial means or by using any other electric apparatus. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 135 of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder : “Section 135. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 135 of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder : “Section 135. (Theft of Electricity): --- [(1) Whoever, dishonestly, -- (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier as the case may be; or (b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or (c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity, (d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or (e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both: Provided that in a case where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use – (i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity; (ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of electricity: Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for that period from any other source or generating station: Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorized by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity has been dishonestly caused by such consumer. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity: Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as authorized for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of the rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply line of electricity: Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction within twenty four hours from the time of such disconnection: Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment.] (2) [Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be,] authorized in this behalf by the State Government may – (a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in which he has reason to believe that electricity 2[has been or is being,] used unauthorisedly; (b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which has been, or is being, used for unauthorized use of electricity; (c) examine or seize any books of account or documents which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in respect of the offence under sub-section (1) and allow the person from whose custody such books of account or documents are seized to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in his presence. (3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf shall remain present during the search and a list of all things seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list: Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member occupying such premises. (4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under this Act.” 6.1 It is relevant to note herein that the prosecution has not examined the said Deepakbhai, who had signed the report. It is also relevant to note herein that the prosecution had moved an application to add Pradipkumar, who was the owner of the premises, as an accused but, there was no further proceedings and the prosecution had not taken care to show the said Pradipkumar as an accused in the alleged offence of theft of electric energy. It is also surprising to note herein that the FIR was filed against Pradipkumar, however, his name was not shown in the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet was led against the present respondent, however, to connect the present respondent with the alleged offence of theft of electric energy as provided under Section 135 of the Act, the prosecution had not collected any material to prove the case against the present respondent accused and there was no any cogent and material evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court connecting the respondent accused in any manner to the premises. In fact, PW-1 – Kamleshbhai Ramjibhai Snehkunj being the Executive Engineer (Exh.-17) had deposed in his examination-in-chief that when they reached to the spot for the purpose of raiding the premises, one Deepakbhai Mansukhbhai was present, who was the son of the present respondent, and in his presence, they had raided the premises and they had found that the meter placed on the wall was tampered and by using artificial means or electric apparatus, the electric energy was extracted and they had also found that the seal applied on the meter-box was also tampered and the said facts were drawn by figuring in the checking-sheet and after considering all these aspects, they had issued a supplementary bill to Pradipbhai Dave, meaning thereby, they are alleging theft against Pradipbhai but, the said Pradipbhai was not charge-sheeted. PW-1 had instructed PW-2 – Gajanand Madhubhai Sanghiani (Exh.-24) to file FIR for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Act and on the basis of that, the FIR was filed by PW-2 before the Electricity Department at Dhangadhra. In his cross-examination he has admitted that they had not collected any evidence with regard to the fact that whether the respondent accused Mansukhbhai was a tenant of the premises or he was in occupation of the said premises since the respondent accused was not present at the time of raid. It was also admitted by the concerned witness that they had not recorded the statement of Dipakbhai. It was also admitted that in the police statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he had not stated that the respondent accused was the tenant of the premises. It was also further admitted by the witness that they had also not investigated as to whether the respondent was a tenant or was in possession of the premises or whether any rent receipt was issued to him by the owner or not. It was also further admitted that the electricity connection was in the name of Pradipbhai Dave and the meter was issued by PGVCL, however, he was not having any details with regard to the same and therefore, there was no material to show how they had raided and how they had investigated to connect the present respondent with the alleged offence of theft of electric energy. On the contrary, PW-1 has stated in his cross-examination that Pardipbhai was not perhaps the consumer of the electricity board and the electric meter placed on the wall perhaps might be illegally applied and therefore, after considering the evidence of such in nature, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Even from the deposition of PW-3 – Nikulsinh Mahipatsinh Chudasama (Exh.-27), he has stated that he has not recorded the statement of Pradipbhai and from his deposition, the fact reveals that the premises was given on rent to the respondent accused and for that, they had not collected any evidence and not produced any material before the trial court like-wise the rent receipt or any other document to show that the respondent was in occupation of the premises or not. He has stated before the trial court that he had not verified the fact as to whether the respondent accused was in possession of the said premises or not. Therefore, after considering all theses aspects, this court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondent accused. 6.2 The learned trial Judge has considered all the relevant material produced by the prosecution and after going through the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order acquitting the present respondents accused. It is also now well settled that while exercising powers under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., if the trial court while passing the order has committed any illegality or any perversity or has exceeded the jurisdiction, unless and until such facts come on record, the Court is very slow while dealing with an acquittal appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in a series of judgments enunciated the principles while exercising jurisdiction under Section 378 against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is inasmuch as can re-appreciate the evidence, review or re-consider the evidence and if the Court finds that there is any illegality or any irregularity in the judgment then in that case only, the Court has power to entertain the appeal and interfere with the order of acquittal. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraphs 42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in [2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court. 6.3 It is also worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras – 37 to 40 as under:- “37. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: - "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] " 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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. (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. 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." 38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: - "8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 39. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 7. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 10/12/2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar in Special Case No.136 of 2007 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondent accused stands cancelled. 7.1 Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.