Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 856 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Vipulbhai Jaysukhbhai Shah

2024-04-15

M.K.THAKKER

body2024
JUDGMENT : M.K. THAKKER, J. 1. This appeal is filed under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10-02-2016 passed by Learned Special Judge, Surendranagar in (electricity) case No. 11 of 2011. 2. It is the case of the complainant who is electricity company namely Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited that, on 24-03-2010, the checking was carried out of the electricity connection of the consumer namely Messers Rumi Plast situated at GIDC, phase 2 at Vadhvan. It was found that, the consumer of the licensee company which is supplying the electricity is having the consumer number 72601/00705 and having the industrial connection under tariff of L.T.P. iii, manipulation was made in the meter by way of external device and thereby they have committed theft of electricity for the amount of Rs. 14,14,568.09/- and thereby caused monetary loss to the electricity company. 2.1. Alleging the aforesaid charges, a complaint came to be lodged by the officer of the electricity company against Mr. Vipul Jaysukhbhai Shah and Mr. Hitenbhai Shah which was registered being IICR No. 846 of 2010 for the offence punishable under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned competent court against applicant only, which was registered under criminal case No. 708 of 2010. As a special Court was having the power to adjudicate the charges, therefore it was committed to the learned Special Court, Surendranagar and was numbered as Special (Electric) case No. 11 of 2011. The charges came to be framed below Exh.22 and plea came to be recorded below Exh.23, whereby the respondent-accused pleaded non guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and produced 16 documentary evidences before the learned Special Court. After considering the evidence placed on record and the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the learned Special Court has acquitted the respondent-accused from the charges which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 3. Heard learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah for the State, learned Advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera for the respondent-accused and on the request made by the learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for PGVCL, an opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant. 4. 3. Heard learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah for the State, learned Advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera for the respondent-accused and on the request made by the learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for PGVCL, an opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant. 4. Learned APP as well as Ms. Bhaya for the complainant submits that the instant case was an example of the latest advanced modus operandi of committing the theft of electricity, where neither static meter is required to be touched, nor the seal is required to be tampered or the meter is required to be opened nor any internal part of meter is required to be disturbed. High tech instrument/circuit is used to stop the correct consumption of recording in the meter, whenever this instrument is brought near the meter, the meter would stop recording the correct consumption and the moment you remove the external circuit, the meter would again start working normally. It is submitted that this instrument was being used on large scale in the Saurashtra region and it was difficult for the electricity company to find the theft of the electricity by such modus operandi. The L&T Company who is the manufacturer of the meter has found that as wherever such external circuit is used for committing theft of electricity, in analysis report of the meter it was confirmed that meter is subjected to some external means which may lead the meter into appearance of the value in cumulative energy like 9496729.5 and it has resulted into prevention of registration of electricity's actual energy. If this figure comes in the meter, then it can be assumed that external device is used to stop recording the correct consumption in the meter, therefore a circular has been issued by the PGVCL to the field officers to find out where these type of anomaly is found and this type of figure is displayed in the meter, it may be confirmed after analysis of MRI data produced appearance of this magic figure that this is a case of theft of electricity. The said circular was issued by the electricity company on 09-05-2010 which is the initiation of the prosecution in the present case. 4.1. It is further submitted that the prosecution had proved the case by examining Deputy Engineer namely Mr. The said circular was issued by the electricity company on 09-05-2010 which is the initiation of the prosecution in the present case. 4.1. It is further submitted that the prosecution had proved the case by examining Deputy Engineer namely Mr. Pinakinbhai Amrutbhai below Exh.28, who confirmed that for getting the financial gain by applying this external device/circuit theft of electricity is committed and when the meter was checked, on the meter display it was showing the figure of 9496729.5 which tallies with the circular dated 09-02-2010 of PGVCL. The MRI data was also proved through the evidence of this witness which also suggests that correct consumption was not allowed to be recorded in the meter for some period of time. It is submitted that for further analysis, the said MRI data was sent to the L&T Company which has also confirmed that this meter was subjected to external device and it was dishonest abstraction of electricity and thereafter the L&T company has also prepared the report which was also placed before the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that during the examination of this witness, it came on record that different anomaly's were recorded in MRI data, the common hourly load survey data, hourly consumption data found to have been missing whenever this meter was in hang condition. One more anomaly found such as figure of 9496729.5 cumulative energy, if it is seen in the meter or TXDT or the XDT. It is proved from the evidence of this witness examined below 28 that out of these 3 if 1 is seen then it is a case of theft of electricity. 5. Prosecution has further examined other witness namely Mr. Bharatbhai Manubhai Patel, deputy engineer below Exh.43, who was the person present at the time of checking. During the evidence of this witness it was brought on the record that, at the time of checking CFKWH reading was not scrolling. This witness has further deposed that large number of cases of the electricity theft, meters were sent to the laboratory inspections and laboratories were flooded with such meters, therefore time was taken to inspect the meters. 6. The prosecution has also examined the officer of L&T company namely Mr. This witness has further deposed that large number of cases of the electricity theft, meters were sent to the laboratory inspections and laboratories were flooded with such meters, therefore time was taken to inspect the meters. 6. The prosecution has also examined the officer of L&T company namely Mr. Ramnadsatyanarayn Chappidi below Exh.51, he deposed in his evidence that MRI data was sent to him which was analyzed and opinion was given that because of use of external instrument this figure is coming in the meter of value energy registered that is 9496729.5 which suggests that correct consumption was not allowed to be recorded. A certificate issued by the L&T company was produced through this witness below Exh.53. This witness has also given different types of anomalies which was produced below Exh.54 and thereby prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The another witness namely Ms. Jagrutiben Rajendrakumar Ratnu was examined below Exh.55 who deposed that the meter was examined in the laboratory which was applied on panel and it was found that CFKWH 9496729.5 figure was shown. It is submitted that despite the prosecution had proved the case by examining all the material witnesses, the judgment and order of the acquittal was passed mainly on the ground that in the checking sheet there is no record with regard to the using of external instrument and in the MRI data the aforesaid position is not seen. Another ground on which the acquittal was awarded that this meter was not hang. It is submitted that without any cogent reasons the judgment and order of acquittal is passed and therefore the prayer is made to interfere with the impugned judgment and order to convict the respondent-accused from the charges laid against him. 8. On the other hand learned Advocate Ms. Ajmera has opposed this appeal and submitted that, in cases where acquittal has been awarded there would be double presumption of innocence in favor of the respondent-accused and therefore the Appellate Court would be slow in reversing the acquittal into conviction, specifically when there was no lacuna or error committed by the learned Trial Court. Learned Advocate Ms. Ajmera submits that the circular on which the prosecution was based was not enactment, rule, notification or contract and merely on the basis of circular, Court cannot hold him guilty of theft of electricity like a statutory source. Learned Advocate Ms. Learned Advocate Ms. Ajmera submits that the circular on which the prosecution was based was not enactment, rule, notification or contract and merely on the basis of circular, Court cannot hold him guilty of theft of electricity like a statutory source. Learned Advocate Ms. Ajmera submits that, even for the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that circular is valid then also the number which is mentioned in the circular is not found in the meter at the time of checking. As per the circular the number which is required to be found is 949672.95 and in the disputed meter the number that is found is 9496729.5. With regard to this no clarification was made by the prosecution. 8.1. Learned Advocate Ms. Ajmera submits that, even after seizing the meter, complainant company did not bother to send it to the laboratory for checking and on obtaining information under RTI when the respondent-accused came into the knowledge about the same he applied and requested that meter be sent to the laboratory and thereafter it was sent after 4.5 years. 8.2. Learned Advocate Ms. Ajmera submits that, the certificate on which the reliance is placed by the prosecution, the author of that certificate was not examined. The evidence through which this certificate was placed on record is of sales manager and therefore the learned Trial Court rightly not believe this certificate and passed the judgment and order of acquittal. 8.3. Learned advocate Ms. Ajmera submits that the case of prosecution is that external circuit was used to hang the meter and the said circuit is not recovered during the investigation which also suggests that no circuit was used or available at the time when the checking was carried out or subsequent to that. Learned advocate Ms. Ajmera submits that prior to the checking the disputed meter was checked before one month and at that point of time, there was no anomaly found in the meter. However, as the unlawful demand was made by the officer which the accused had not fulfilled which ultimately resulted in the prosecution. 8.4. Learned advocate Ms. Learned advocate Ms. Ajmera submits that prior to the checking the disputed meter was checked before one month and at that point of time, there was no anomaly found in the meter. However, as the unlawful demand was made by the officer which the accused had not fulfilled which ultimately resulted in the prosecution. 8.4. Learned advocate Ms. Ajmera submits that, at the relevant point of time when the raid was carried out electricity was disconnected and business of respondent-accused was entirely halted due to which the respondent-accused had approached this Court wherein the directions were issued to deposit the entire amount of the provisional bill which was deposited by the present opponent. Learned advocate Ms. Ajmera submits that, at the time of checking, the officer of the PGVCL was not sure about the theft and as per the report submitted it is stated that it would be finalized after the laboratory checking. Inspite of the same, electricity was immediately disconnected and the complaint was registered without waiting for the final report from the laboratory. 8.5. Lastly Ms. Ajmera submits that, there was no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the respondent-accused and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that charges were framed for the offence punishable under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 against the respondent-accused wherein it is stated that on 24-03-2010 on checking being carried out it is found that with the help of the external device manipulation of the meter was made and the theft of electricity for the amount of Rs. 14,14,568.09/- was committed. 10. Prosecution has examined Mr. Pinakin Amrutbhai, deputy engineer below Exh.28 who deposed in his evidence that on 24-03-2010 when the checking was carried out it was found that electricity theft was committed. The number which was found to have been displayed on CFKWH is 9496729.5 and therefore as per the circular dated 09-02-2010 theft of electricity found to have been committed, the circular is produced below Exh.31. At the time of checking in the factory one Mr. Vipul H. Patel was present and his signature was taken on the report in the Rojkaam prepared in the place of the offence. At the time of checking in the factory one Mr. Vipul H. Patel was present and his signature was taken on the report in the Rojkaam prepared in the place of the offence. He deposed that it further comes on record that there were two partners namely Mr. Hitenbhai Shah and Mr. Vipulbhai Jaisukhbhai Shah against whom the FIR came to be lodged. He admits that, pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court, the bill amount was paid by the respondent-accused. It is deposed by this witness that after obtaining the MRI data from the meter, it was sent to the L&T, Baroda for the analysis and as per the report submitted by them it is found that the number that is 9496729.5 is displayed on the meter and thereby offence of theft of electricity was committed by the respondent-accused. During the cross examination he admits that, the seal of the meters were intact, meter was running in normal condition, the external circuit was not found at the place, the value namely 9496729.5 if it is shown it does not mean that theft is committed and there is no provision under the electricity Act or in the regulation, that was provided in the circular below Exh.31 only. He did not have any knowledge with regard to the procedure of the circular and only on the basis of the circular this FIR is lodged. At the time of checking he was not present, therefore he did not have any knowledge with regard to the checking of the meter. The circular issued by GUVNL dated 23-06-2008 provides the guidelines in the cases of theft of electricity. That there are different anomalies found and if one of the anomaly is satisfied then that would be the case of theft of electricity. In the cases where the meter is hang or in a tampered condition then hourly load survey data and hourly consumption data found to have been missing. In the instant case there was no such type of missing data found in the MRI. He admits that, Exh.33 Rojkaam shows that meter is not hanged. The letter which was given by the L&T company showing the anomaly suggests that meter was in healthy condition. In the instant case there was no such type of missing data found in the MRI. He admits that, Exh.33 Rojkaam shows that meter is not hanged. The letter which was given by the L&T company showing the anomaly suggests that meter was in healthy condition. The disputed meter was supplied by the L&T company and having the ownership of the electricity company, the FIR is not filed within 24 hours of disconnection of electricity. 11. The next witness who was examined by the prosecution was Mr. Bharatbhai Manubhai Patel, deputy engineer, checking officer below Exh.46. He has reiterated the depositions of the PW-1, therefore same is not discussed in detail. However, during the cross examination he admits that on the place of offence except to prepare the Rojkaam and the checking sheet no other procedures were done. He admits that meter was not in a hang condition and at the time of raiding he could not conclude that there was theft in electricity. He admits that as per rules, the checking which was carried out earlier, the supplementary bill would be issued after calculating the electricity from that date. He did not have the knowledge that, before one month checking was carried out. He admits that except this meter no other things were seized. He also admits that at the place of offence, the disputed meter was not compared with the normal healthy meter. 12. The next witness who was examined namely Mr. Ramanad Satyanarayan Chapidi who was the officer of L&T below Exh51. During the evidence of this witness, it comes on record that analysis of data was done by the officer of the L&T company and the energy registered No. 9496729.5 was displayed on the meter. The analysis report was prepared by the Assistant Manager Mr. Shrinivas. In the cross examination he admits that he had not participated during the data analysis and while preparing the report produced below Exh.53. Except 35 data, nothing was sent for analysis with the L&T company and only on the basis of Exh.35 a report was prepared below Ex.53. There were no examinations done in the meter and no opinion was given with regard to the meter. In the instant case meter was not in a hang condition. Anomaly 1 which was produced below Exh.54 suggests that there was no theft in the electricity. There were no examinations done in the meter and no opinion was given with regard to the meter. In the instant case meter was not in a hang condition. Anomaly 1 which was produced below Exh.54 suggests that there was no theft in the electricity. As per anomaly this meter appears to be in a correct condition. First anomaly shows as per report of Exh.54, in Exh.35, TXDT anomaly is not shown. On perusing Exh.31 circular, common patent present that is 949672.95 and TXDT both are required. 13. The next witness who was examined namely Ms. Jagrutiben Rajendrakumar Ratnu who is working in Surendranagar division in meter testing laboratory as a deputy engineer. In her chief examination, she suggests that meter No. 05386663 has come for analysis which was allotted to the customer namely Rumi Plast whose consumer No. Is 72601/00705/2. The said meter was taken from the place on 24-03-2010 and was sent by Shri A.H. Vaghela, deputy engineer CT2. The said meter was opened in the presence of the representative of Rumi Plast namely Mr. Manishbhai Mukundbhai and in the presence of the officer of electricity company. In the meter it was found in CFKWH, the No. 9496729.5 which suggests that by using the external device, meter was hanged. During the cross examination she admits that meter was not hang, seal was intact, no circuit was produced, meter was seized on 24-03-2010 and the meter laboratory examination was done on 29-09-2014 i.e. after 4.5 years. She admits that, they have not analyzed with regard to the working condition of the meter. There was no testing done during the laboratory inspection after using the circuit to confirm that the consumption was not recorded. With a circuit and without a circuit any difference comes that has not been tested in the laboratory inspection. No parallel healthy meter was compared during the meter testing. In the present case, the disputed meter was not referred by the electricity company. 14. Considering the evidence which was placed by the prosecution during the trial, it comes on record that initiation and conclusion of the whole prosecution was based on the circular dated 09-02-2010 produced below Exh.31. No parallel healthy meter was compared during the meter testing. In the present case, the disputed meter was not referred by the electricity company. 14. Considering the evidence which was placed by the prosecution during the trial, it comes on record that initiation and conclusion of the whole prosecution was based on the circular dated 09-02-2010 produced below Exh.31. The circular itself is required to be considered independently which is reproduced herein-below: Anent to above, and as reported by field offices regarding modus operandi of tempering of LT Static meters by using external device that deliberately lead meters’ electronic circuit malfunction and hangs the meter and thereby prevent energy meter to record energy consumption. The common pattern observed in MRI data of meters tempered with such external devices is as under: 1. In hourly load survey data, hourly consumption data is missing for the tempered period while meter is under hanged condition. 2. Value like “949672.95” appears in any of the cumulative energy register (Forward or reverse KW, KVA, KVARh-lag or KVARh-lead) in L&T make meters. 3. Meter records anomaly and “TXDT” appears in the anomaly string (L&T make meters) Such cases shall be processed as per the provisions u/s 135 of IE Act-2003. It is further decided that once such pattern is established: (a) Power supply of said consumer shall be disconnected till the consumer declares and identify the supplier of tampering instrument. (b) GoG notification for compounding offence is to be scrupulously followed. Copy of the same is attached herewith. (c) The connection shall be booked u/s 135 of IE Act 2003 and assessment shall be made accordingly. All relevant information and evidences may be seized/gathered while deciding the case. Also MRI data in soft and hard copy shall be preserved by assessing officer till the matter is finalized. Details of such cases shall be separately maintained and reviewed by the circle offices every month regularly. 15. The checking sheet which was prepared at the place of offence suggests that No. Which was displayed on CFKWH is 9496729.5. As per the circular the number is required is 949672.95 the base on which this complaint was lodged that is the value number is also not matching with the checking sheet which was produced below Exh.32 as .95 is missing in the checking sheet. As per the circular the number is required is 949672.95 the base on which this complaint was lodged that is the value number is also not matching with the checking sheet which was produced below Exh.32 as .95 is missing in the checking sheet. The circular cannot be said either enactment of law or any regulations or neither any notification was issued to lodge the prosecution on the basis of the circular. It is true that in the circular this magic number appeared, but thereafter electricity company ought to have send the meter to the laboratory immediately. However, the same was done for 4.5 years, at the request of the respondent company this meter was sent on 29-09-2014 in 2014. The RTI application which was preferred to get the information that whether this circular was subjected to the laboratory for inspection or not, the respondent came to know that after seizing the meter, except issuing the theft bill and lodging the complaint, nothing has been done by the electricity company. The certificate which was issued by the L&T officer was only on the basis of the MRI data that is below Exh.35. No independent evidence was examined by the L&T officer of the meter, neither this circuit was kept available during the laboratory examination to confirm the fact that whether this number is scrolling on the display after using the circuit or not. 16. Circular may be initiation of the proceedings, but ultimately it cannot be a conclusive proof in absence of any material which should be collected independently. During the laboratory inspection, all the seals found to have been intact. However, only on the basis of the circular below Exh.31, the prosecution has lodged and even a charge-sheet was also submitted. 17. The MRI data which was relied below Exh.54 is also a doubtful as MRI data though for some period showing the zero consumption, then also tampering is not shown and at some place consumption is recorded then also tampering appears to have been recorded. The anomaly which is tried to put before this Court is that it was, TXDT which was found from the MRI data suggests as per Exh.54 that meter is in normal and healthy condition. However, without considering this, the conclusion as averred by the electricity officers that theft was committed which appears to be without evidence. The anomaly which is tried to put before this Court is that it was, TXDT which was found from the MRI data suggests as per Exh.54 that meter is in normal and healthy condition. However, without considering this, the conclusion as averred by the electricity officers that theft was committed which appears to be without evidence. In the opinion of this Court prosecution fails to establish guilt of respondent-accused beyond reasonable ground and therefore learned trial court rightly acquitted the respondent-accused from the charges. 18. One more crucial aspect is that as per the section 135(1-a) to lodge a complaint within 24 hours after the disconnection of the electricity, the said section is produced herein below: Section 135 (1A) (1A) Without prejudice tot he 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 authorised for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of 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 to lodge the complaint as referred to in the second provisio to this clause, restore the supply line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or payment.” In the instant case disconnection was done on 24-03-2010 and the complaint was lodged on 10-04-2010 that is after more than 17 days. These provisions for lodging FIR is a mandatory provision and therefore if any breech is found to have been committed, then the prosecution would fail on that basis also. 19. These provisions for lodging FIR is a mandatory provision and therefore if any breech is found to have been committed, then the prosecution would fail on that basis also. 19. This being an acquittal appeal, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 wherein the general principles were laid down regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against an order of the acquittal, which are reproduced herein-below: “(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 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.” 20. Resultantly, this appeal fails and the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Special Judge, Surendranagar in (electric) case No. 11 of 2011 dated 10-02-2016 needs no interference, hence, the same is confirmed. ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2023 1. It emerges from the record that after the judgment and order of acquittal passed in special electricity case No. 11 of 2011 on 10-02-2016, the applicant herein has filed the application before the learned District Court, Surendranagar praying to refund the amount of Rs. ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2023 1. It emerges from the record that after the judgment and order of acquittal passed in special electricity case No. 11 of 2011 on 10-02-2016, the applicant herein has filed the application before the learned District Court, Surendranagar praying to refund the amount of Rs. 14,15,642/- alongwith interest which was lying with the Gujarat Vij Corporation Company Limited. 2. Learned District Court vide order dated 04-01-2020, has come to the conclusion that the amount was disposed pursuant to the order passed by this Court, therefore learned District Court cannot direct to refund the amount which is lying with the electricity company. 3. Against the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred special civil application No. 2282 of 2021 before this Court praying to refund the amount which was deposited pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4563 of 2010, the respondent-electricity company has taken the stand that appeal challenging the acquittal is pending before this Court, therefore writ Court would not have jurisdiction to pass an order to refund the amount. On the basis of this submission made by the respondent-electricity company, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has passed the order disposing the special civil application with liberty to prefer an application before the competent forum where the Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2016 is pending. 4. Therefore the present miscellaneous application is preferred by the applicant praying to the following reliefs: “(a) Your lordships be pleased to allow this petition. (b) Your lordship may be pleased to issue Order or Direction, directing the Electricity Board to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 14,15,642/- along interest accrued thereon Rs. 17,62,436/- totalling to Rs. 31,78,078/- with interest at the rate of 18%, lying with the board as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court. (c) Pending the admission and final hearing of the present application be pleased to direct the Gujarat Electricity Board to deposit the amount of Rs. 31,78,078 before this Hon’ble Court.” 5. 17,62,436/- totalling to Rs. 31,78,078/- with interest at the rate of 18%, lying with the board as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court. (c) Pending the admission and final hearing of the present application be pleased to direct the Gujarat Electricity Board to deposit the amount of Rs. 31,78,078 before this Hon’ble Court.” 5. It emerges that, after the hearing learned counsel for the complainant company and the State, this Court has dismissed the appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2016 and therefore the direction is required to be issued to the electricity company to refund the amount deposited pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4563 of 2010 dated 05-05-2010 on furnishing an undertaking before the electricity company by the respondent-accused, that in the event of reversal of judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2016 by the higher forum, then the amount would be remitted back in the account of the complainant company alongwith the accrued interest. 6. Resultantly this application is allowed. In view of the above directions, this application stands disposed of accordingly.