Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 832 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Pravinbhai Gordhanbhai Gohil

2025-08-01

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO , J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Special (G.E.B.) Case No. 18 of 2009 on 25.07.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 135 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. On 07.03.2006, the officers of the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “PGVCL”) had gone for checking in village Khakhra-1, Taluka Dhrol, District Jamnagar, and while checking the rented house of the accused, it was found that the accused was not a consumer of electricity and had directly joined the electricity line of the PGVCL and was illegally consuming 385 watts of electricity. After the necessary calculation, it was found that theft of electricity of Rs. 32,583.18 paisa was committed by the accused and the complainant Nitinhhai Damjibhai Dhameliya, Deputy Engineer, PGVCL Sub-Division, Dhrol, filed the complaint at the PGVCL Rajkot Zone Police Station, which was registered under Section 135 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 at II-C.R.No. 407 of 2007. 2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No. 17 of 2009. 2.3. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No. 17 of 2009. 2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.4 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 03 witnesses and produced 07 documentary evidences in support of the case. 2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.21, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence and refused to step into the witness box and lead evidence. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 135 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned Trial Court has erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused though there are ample and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime and the offence registered against him. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record it its true spirit. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, invalid, improper, perverse and bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record it its true spirit. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, invalid, improper, perverse and bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant – State. Though served, the respondent no. 1 has not appeared either in person or has not engaged a lawyer. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant – State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence and impose maximum sentence on the accused. 6. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must. 7. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal appeals, the evidence on record is re-appreciated and PW-1 Nitinbhai Damjibhai Dhameliya, examined at Exh.8, is the complainant, who has stated that on 07.03.2006, Junior Engineer B.V.Fera and linemen Ramchandra Ambaram Nimavat had gone to Khakhra-1 village and found that the accused was committing theft of electricity by directly connecting a wire to the electricity line and was committing theft of electricity. They seized the wire and disconnected the electricity connection and a checking sheet was prepared and the muddamal was deposited in their office. The assessment sheet Annexure-11 was prepared, which is produced at Exh.9 and the complainant filed the complaint at the PGVCL Rajkot Zone Police Station which is produced at Exh.10. During the cross-examination, the accused has admitted that the checking was conducted on 07.03.2006 and the complaint was filed on 26.04.2006, but in the complaint, there was no explanation regarding the delay in filing of the complaint. The witness has admitted that he did not go to the place of incident and he has no personal knowledge about the incident. During the cross-examination, the accused has admitted that the checking was conducted on 07.03.2006 and the complaint was filed on 26.04.2006, but in the complaint, there was no explanation regarding the delay in filing of the complaint. The witness has admitted that he did not go to the place of incident and he has no personal knowledge about the incident. He did not take any permission from the higher authority prior to filing of the complaint and the assessment bill was sent by post to the accused, but he does not know whether it was received by him or not and no evidence to that effect has been produced on record. The wire that was seized by the checking officers was not seized in the presence of independent panch witnesses and no panchnama was drawn at the time of the checking. 7.1. PW-2 Ramchandra Ambaram Nimavat, examined at Exh.13, is the line inspector, who had gone along with Junior Engineer B. V. Fera for checking the electricity connections in village Khakhra-I. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has produced the checking sheet at Exh.14 and the Rojkam at Exh.15. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he does not know whether any written permission was taken from the higher authority for checking and the muddamal was not seized in the presence of any panch witnesses and no panchnama was drawn. They did not record the statements of any neighbours at the place of checking and no documents regarding the house of the accused were seized. They did not produce any document to show that they were authorized to go for checking and he does not remember whether they took permission of the owner of the house or the occupier of the house to enter the house. 7.2. PW-3 Ranjitsingh Kuldipsingh Lubana, examined at Exh.17, is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation and has produced the copy of the FIR at Exh.19 and the statement of the Talati-cum-Mantri stating that the accused is a resident of village Khakra at Exh.20. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that no muddamal was seized during investigation and no panchnama of the place of offence was drawn. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that no muddamal was seized during investigation and no panchnama of the place of offence was drawn. No statements of any independent witnesses were recorded and at the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant did not produce any authority given by any Superior Officer to file the complaint. During investigation, no document regarding the ownership of the house was seized. 8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the complainant PW-1 NitinbhaI Damjibhai Dhameliya was not a member of the checking squad and he has not gone for checking. PW-2 Ramchandra Ambaram Nimavat Line inspector is the only witness, who had accompanied the Junior Engineer B.V.Fera at the time of the checking, but no muddamal has been produced before the learned Trial Court and the witness has stated that the accused had used a wire to directly connect the electricity line and consume electricity, but no such wire has been handed over to the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer has stated that he did not seize any wire during investigation. There is no evidence on record that the officers were authorized to go for checking or that they had gone for checking as there is no evidence of any independent witness on record. There is no iota of evidence that the complainant was authorized to file the complaint and the complainant was not a member of the checking squad and had no personal knowledge about the offence. 9. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the leanred Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 10. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 10. The judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar in Special (G.E.B.) Case No. 18 of 2009 on 25.07.2012 is hereby confirmed. 11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.