JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Ele.) Panchmahal at Godhra (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special Case (Ele.) No. 5 of 2007 whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”). 2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.09.2002, while complainant has visited the place of the accused at Village: Chandpura, Taluka: Lunavada for the purpose of checking of electric line, accused No. 1 and 2 were found consuming electric supply directly from the transmission. It is the case of the prosecution that necessary panchnama was drawn on checking sheet and bill of Rs.1,47,380.84 paisa and Rs.1,92,742.30 paise were prepared and issued to the accused which were not paid by the accused. 2.2 On the basis of the said aforesaid, the FIR being C.R. No. II-149 of 2002 came to be filed before Lunavada Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Act against the accused, drew the panchnama. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of the witnesses and collected necessary evidence against the accused. 2.3 After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against all the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Court has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as aforesaid Sessions Case. 2.4 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court on 30.09.2008 for the aforesaid offences against the accused and explained it to them, the accused denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the trial Court. 2.5 To prove the case, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced the documentary evidence before the trial Court. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the trial Court. 2.5 To prove the case, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced the documentary evidence before the trial Court. 2.6 After closure of the evidence, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been recorded. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat and Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents- accused at length. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offence in its proper perspective. He has submitted that the trial Court ought to have believed that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the accused. He has submitted that the findings of the trial Court are perverse and are based on conjectures and surmises. He has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused by leading evidence of the witnesses. He has submitted that the findings of the trial Court are perverse and are based on conjectures and surmises. He has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused by leading evidence of the witnesses. While referring to the evidence of PW-2 Mangalbhai Motibhai Pagi examined at Exhibit 22, who was serving as helper at Lunavada and PW-3 Shaileshbhai Vasudevbhai Pandya examined at Exhibit 23, who was serving as junior engineer at Godhra Circle Office Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that both the witnesses were on duty with the checking squad they found that accused by using electric cable were abstracting the electricity from the line and the said cable was seized and sent to the Divisional Office at Lunawada and on the basis above, PW-3 prepared sheet and sent to PW-1 and PW-1 received the sheet and issued supplementary bill to the accused with regard to unauthorized electricity connection and the same was not paid by the accused and, therefore, the FIR came to be lodged. According to his submission, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed necessary sentence. He has prayed to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 6. Per contra, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the accused has supported the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and fact in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. He has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused as the names of the accused were wrongly shown in the FIR and their real names were also not mentioned in the FIR and the concerned Investigating Officer has not collected any evidence. He has submitted that so far as the present accused are concerned, they were the occupiers of the premises where the electric connection was connected by using the electric cable and the devise directly connected to the line, however, the concerned officer has failed to collect the evidence with regard to the fact that whether the said premises was in the name of the accused or not. He has submitted that though the electric cable and apparatus were seized from the place, but the same has not been placed before the trial Court and the investigating officer. He has submitted that the panchnama for seizure of the electric cable and apparatus which were used for extracting the electricity, was not drawn, but in fact the panchnama was drawn and it was not supported by the evidence of the panch witnesses. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel has submitted that in the panchnama at Exhibit 27, it is mentioned that the fan, bulb and tube light etc were lying in the premises and except these items, no any other appliances were shown and therefore the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that on the contrary, accused while recording their evidence, they have produced relevant documents before the trial Court i.e. copy of the Special Civil Suit No. 67 of 2004 filed by the GEB against them and on perusal the same, it appears that the names which were shown in the FIR and in the charge-sheet were incorrect as the documentary evidence produced in the civil suit filed by the GEB against the accused the names shown in the suit are completely different and the area is also different rather than the area shown in the complaint. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel has submitted that the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and no interference is required to be called for. He has submitted that there is no any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and the same being meritless deserves to be dismissed. He has urged to dismiss the appeal and confirm the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 7. This Court has perused the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court and carefully considered the rival contentions, evidence and material placed on record. 8. The facts emerge from the record that the complainant was not party to the checking squad and in his presence nothing has been reported and, therefore, he was not aware with the subject matter. 8. The facts emerge from the record that the complainant was not party to the checking squad and in his presence nothing has been reported and, therefore, he was not aware with the subject matter. However, he has lodged the FIR for the alleged offence of theft of electricity on the basis of the oral information given by the staff members that while they were on duty and they were with checking squad on 16.09.2002, they found that at the place of residence of the accused, the accused have extracted the electricity by using the cable and other apparatus from the electricity line and they have also seized the yellow colour electricity cable admeasuring 50 meters and that is how the complainant has given written complaint to the concerned Police Station. In fact, the yellow colour cable was neither sent to the laboratory nor it was seized by the concerned Investigating Officer. In fact, at all the three places the colour of electricity cable was completely change. Initially, in the FIR, the colour of cable was mentioned as yellow, in the deposition of the complainant, the colour of cable was mentioned as black and in the evidence of other witness, the colour of cable was mentioned as red. The prosecution has not confirmed about the colour of the cable and how it was used. On perusal of the evidence of the complainant, it appears that he has neither any personal knowledge with regard to the offence in question nor he has any knowledge with regard to the fact that at the place of offence whether he has prepared the panchnama or seized anything from the place or not. It also appears that there was nothing mentioned about the said aspect in the FIR. It appears that PW-2, who was serving as helper, had gone with PW-3 at the place of offence where he has removed the cable from the line. On perusal of the evidence of PW-2, it appears that he has stated that he went to the Village: Chandpur along with one Sharma and other staff members of electricity company from Godhara and they were in checking, however, PW-1 was not informed about the said checking squad visiting the Village: Chandpur nor he was assigned any duty to his subordinate to accompany the checking squad for the purpose of checking of electricity connection. On what basis the PW-3 and PW-2 went to the place along with the checking squad, the prosecution has not produced any relevant documents before the trial Court that on the basis of the initial instruction passed by PW-1, they have accompanied to the checking squad and that is basic fact for which the prosecution has remained silent and has not produced any evidence on the said aspect. So far as the name of the accused shown in the FIR is concerned, the names of the accused are not correctly mentioned in the FIR and, therefore, the accused have produced relevant document showing that their names shown in the FIR and in the charge-sheet are not same and the same are different one. The accused have produced the relevant paper of the panchayat and other papers showing that they were having residential premises at different village and not at the addressed mentioned in the FIR. It also appears that the Gujarat Electricity Company has filed civil suit against the accused being Special Civil Suit No. 67 of 2004. Under such circumstances, the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and on perusal of the record, it reveals that neither of the articles were seized by the checking squad produced before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation nor produced before the trial Court. Considering the facts of the case and perusing the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and, therefore, the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 9. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court 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 their acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 10. 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 their acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 10. 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 arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. 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. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. 11. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraph Nos. 42 and 43, which was subsequently reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2024 SC 2252 : (2024) 8 SCC 149 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 12. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in Paras-20 and 21 as under: “20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, regarding the power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus: “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 emphasize 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. (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. 21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.” 13. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record. 14. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record. 14. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.