JUDGMENT : M.K. THAKKER, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 14.09.2007 passed by learned Designated Judge, Special Court and Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Surat, in Special Electricity Case No. 5 of 2007 dated 14.09.2007 by which learned Trial Court has passed the judgment and order of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 135(1A) of the Indian Electricity Act. 2. Facts of the case are as under: 2.1 An offence came to be registered with GEB Police Station South Zone, Surat being II - C.R. No. 455 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Indian Electricity Act on 23.03.2006. It is the case of the complainant i.e. Deputy Engineer that on 23.3.2006, when he was on inspection, he found that respondent-accused has connected the cable directly from the Low Tension Electric Wire passing from transformer of Water and Resources Department and committed theft of electricity for the amount of Rs. 2,50,055.37 and for that, ‘Notice’ under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act was issued. Pursuant to the ‘Notice’ the theft amount was not deposited with the Electricity Company. Therefore, complaint came to be filed. On receiving the complaint, investigation was carried out and at the end of the investigation, on the basis of the material collected, charge-sheet came to be submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Olpad for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Indian Electricity Act. As the case is triable by the learned Special Court, the same was committed to the Learned Special Designated Court and Presiding Officer, Surat. On committal of the case and after satisfying for receiving the papers by the respondent-accused, charge came to be framed below Exh.2 and plea came to be recorded wherein accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the case, prosecution had examined three witnesses, namely, (1) Naginbhai Gomanbhai Patel, PW-1, Exh.4-A, complainant, (2) Bhavesh Kantilal, PW-2, Exh.10 Panch Witness and (3) Jagdish Jayantilal, PW-3, Exh.18. In addition to that, 6 documentary evidences were produced, which is in the nature of complaint, Exh.9, Calculation Sheet Exh.6, Checking Sheet Exh.5, Panchnama of place of offence Exh.12, Recovery of Muddamal Exh.11 and Entry of Station Diary Exh.19. In addition to that, 6 documentary evidences were produced, which is in the nature of complaint, Exh.9, Calculation Sheet Exh.6, Checking Sheet Exh.5, Panchnama of place of offence Exh.12, Recovery of Muddamal Exh.11 and Entry of Station Diary Exh.19. On filing the closing pursis, further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded and all incriminating material was put before the respondent-accused. Respondent-accused had denied the case of prosecution in entirety and pleaded innocent and false implication. However, in defence, he did not examine any witness or produce any document on record. On conclusion of the trial and on appreciation of the material placed, learned trial Court had passed the judgment and order of acquittal on the ground that prosecution fails to prove the charge against the respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 3. Heard Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP for the State and though ‘Rule’ was served as well as bailable warrant was executed upon Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 1 had chosen not to appear before this Court. 4. Learned APP submits that judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned trial Court is without any cogent reasons and without appreciating the evidence, which was placed on record. Learned APP submits that though all three witnesses supported the case of prosecution, in that testimony, learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent-accused only on the ground that prosecution fails to establish the ownership of the premises from where illegal connection of the electricity was found. Learned APP further submits that though the amount of theft was found to have been proved by the prosecution and for that bill along with the theft calculation sheet was produced below Exh.6, the learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent-accused without any cogent reason. Learned APP relies on the statement of the customer and submitted that by proving this document, the prosecution has successfully established that respondent-accused was only in the possession and ownership of the disputed premises. However, without giving the appropriate weight to this evidence, learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent- accused from the charges. Learned APP submits that from the panchnama which was drawn of the place of offence, prosecution has established the presence of the respondent-accused at the place of offence. However, without giving the appropriate weight to this evidence, learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent- accused from the charges. Learned APP submits that from the panchnama which was drawn of the place of offence, prosecution has established the presence of the respondent-accused at the place of offence. However, learned trial Court discarding the aforesaid evidence and passed the judgment and order of the acquittal. At the end, learned APP submits that judgment and order of acquittal is passed contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, same is required to be interfered with and order of acquittal is required to be reversed and order of sentence is required to be passed accordingly. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned APP and on going through the Record and proceedings, which is part of an appeal, this Court finds that, to prove the case, prosecution first examined the complainant below Exh.4A, PW-1, namely, Naginbhai Gomanbhai Patel. In his testimony, this witness has deposed that he was serving as a Deputy Engineer at Rander (Rural). On 25th February, 2006, when he was on checking along with his staff members, namely, Mr. H.N. Pradhan and Mr. N.G. Gamit, who were Junior Engineers, he went to the shop of the respondent-accused, who was doing the business of tyre puncture. It was found that the cable was illegally connected from the Low Tension Electric Wire passing from transformer of Water and Resources Department and the respondent-accused is using the illegal connection of the electricity. It is further deposed that respondent-accused was present at the relevant point of time and therefore, checking sheet was prepared wherein, signature of respondent-accused was taken along with signature of two Junior Engineers. In the said checking sheet, how this connection was arranged that was described and how many articles were used by this illegal connection was also mentioned. On the basis of the said checking sheet, calculation sheet was prepared and it was found that theft of Rs. 2,50,055.37 was committed by the respondent-accused and supplementary bill was prepared under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, which was signed by this witness. Notice under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act was sent to the respondent-accused through RPAD in which his signature was identified and thereafter, he lodged a complaint, which was produced below Exh.9. 2,50,055.37 was committed by the respondent-accused and supplementary bill was prepared under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, which was signed by this witness. Notice under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act was sent to the respondent-accused through RPAD in which his signature was identified and thereafter, he lodged a complaint, which was produced below Exh.9. He shown the place of offence to the police officers and therefore, panchnama was drawn in the presence of panch-witness. 5.1 In the cross-examination conducted by the defence, he admits that along with him, two other Junior Engineers were accompanied to him at the time of checking. It is admitted by him that this tyre puncture shop was on the way and it was found while passing that this illegal cables were connected with Low Tension Line passing from transformer of Water and Resources Department. This shop was small shop and there was no any measurement that he can depose. He admits that one person was present and he did not recollect his name. He states that owner’s name is Anil. He deposed that the person, who was present in the shop, had called the owner. He deposed that at the time of raid, no one had went into the shop. The illegal connection, which was found to have been made for that no any photograph was taken. He admits that panchnama which was drawn of place of offence where signature of panch-witnesses were taken are of staff person. He had not collected any document to show the ownership of the shop. Accused had signed as an owner in the Rojkam. He admits that offence was of 25th February, 2006 and FIR was lodged on 23rd March, 2006. He explained the delay that due to the ‘Notice’ which was issued under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, time was given to make the payment of the theft bill and for not depositing the same, the complaint came to be filed. 6. The another witness who was examined, namely, Bhaveshkumar Kantilal Patel, below Exh.10, PW-2, who was the panch-witness. This witness deposed in his testimony that on being called by the Deputy Engineer, he went to the GEB Office at 12 O’ Clock noon. When he reached to the office, Jayeshbhai Thakorbhai was present and the officer, namely, Naginbhai Patel was also present. This witness deposed in his testimony that on being called by the Deputy Engineer, he went to the GEB Office at 12 O’ Clock noon. When he reached to the office, Jayeshbhai Thakorbhai was present and the officer, namely, Naginbhai Patel was also present. He was asked to sign as a witness of recovery of cable, which was green, black and blue. This panchnama was drawn on 25th February, 2006. Thereafter, on the same day, place of offence, the panchnama was also drawn in his presence. 6.1 In the cross examination, he admits that he is an office bearer of Electricity Company. He admits that in the panchnama of place of offence which was drawn on 25th August, 2006 at 2 O’clock his signature only was taken and not of the accused. He admits that Muddamal was not seized in his presence. He admits that Deputy Engineer, Mr. Patel, is his superior officer and he admits that their confidential report is to be prepared by Mr. Patel and on the basis of the said Report, their increment is decided. 7. Last witness which was examined by the prosecution is Mr. Jagdishbhai Jayantibhai Bhatt, Police Head Constable, GEB Police Station, Surat, who was examined below Exh.18, PW-3. He deposed that on 28th March, 2006, when he was in the GEB Police Station, South Zone, he received the complaint from the Deputy Engineer, Rander (Rural) Sub Division, which was produced below Exh.9. 7.1 In cross examination, he admits that except to register the complaint, he had not done any other proceedings. 8. Considering the evidence placed by the prosecution, before discussing the merits of the case, Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, is required to be considered, which is produced herein-below: “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. (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. (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. (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. (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 [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. (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. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25th February, 2006, when the complainant was on inspection along with two other officers, he found that the electricity cable was connected with Low Tension Lines passing from transformer of Water and Resources Department, which was passing from transformer of Water and Resources Department. The said other two officers who, namely, Mr. H.N. Pradhan and Mr. N.G. Gamit, were not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution had relied only on the evidence of this witness i.e. the complainant and tried to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is undisputed aspect that for the offence of 25th February, 2006, the complaint came to be lodged on 28th March, 2006 explanation offered by this witness in his evidence that time was given to make the payment of theft bill to the accused, which shows that as the amount was not deposited by the accused, the complaint came to be lodged. It can never be criteria that offence would be reported only on failing to deposit the theft amount. If theft has committed, it is required to be reported by the Government officers immediately without waiting for the payment of theft bill as the provision of this Act wherein, under this provision, imprisonment for the period of 3 years is provided along with fine. If theft has committed, it is required to be reported by the Government officers immediately without waiting for the payment of theft bill as the provision of this Act wherein, under this provision, imprisonment for the period of 3 years is provided along with fine. Therefore, there would not be any condition that in the grant bill amount would not be paid, theft would be reported. One more crucial aspect found during the trial that at the time of checking in the chief examination of the complainant, he admits that only one person who is the owner of the shop, namely, Anil was present. However, in the cross examination on this aspect, this witness has deposed that owner was not present but he was called by the person who has found to have been present. Name of the person who was present was not disclosed by the complainant in his evidence. Therefore, this contradiction creates doubt on the case of the prosecution that respondent-accused was the owner of premises and was present at the time of inspection. It is further deposed by the complainant that person who was present had signed in the checking sheet. If the person who was present was not the owner, there would not be any question of taking signature of that person. Therefore also, case of the prosecution appears to be under cloud of suspect. Panch-witness which was relied by the prosecution, namely, PW-2, was the officer of GEB and in his cross examination, he admits that complainant was his superior and on the basis of the C.R., which would be filled up by this complainant, his increment would be decided. Therefore, the said panch-witness cannot be said to have been independent witness and reliable witness as he was working with the complainant. 10. This being an acquittal appeal, as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Jitendra C. Thakkar, 2017 (4) GLR 3200 wherein it is held that when two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the accused is to be considered: 6.10 That in an appeal against acquittal filed under Section 378 of the Code, 1973, as such there is no limitation on the Appellate Court to review the evidence. But at the same time, if on fact as well as on law, conclusion drawn by the trial Court based on appreciation of evidence unless compelling, cogent and substantial reasons appear for interference and when findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, acquittal is not to be reversed or disturbed. When acquittal is based on the surmises and conjectures and not substantiated by law and evidence on record, an Appellate Court may re-appreciate and review the entire evidence to see that undue benefit is not given to the accused. Now, it is well settled that even if two views are possible, the Appellate Court shall not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal in a routine manner unless the judgment of the trial Court is per se wrong on facts and on law or perverse, substituting its own views by the High Court is not permissible. That in case of acquittal, it is to be borne into mind by the Appellate Court that there is double presumption in favour of the accused that firstly, presumption of innocence in favour of a guilty on the premise that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by the Court of Law and secondly, when accused secures an acquittal, such presumption of innocence is reinforced and reaffirmed by the trial Court. 11. As this Court has found no any perversity or the illegality in the impugned judgment and order, therefore, this Court deems it fit not to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal and this appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed accordingly. 12. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. Record and proceedings be sent back to the Court below.