Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 833 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Rajiben Kanubhai

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, Khambhaliya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Special (G.E.B.) Case No. 46 of 2010 on 15.06.2012, 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 24.01.2006, the officers of the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “PGVCL”) checked the house of the accused and found that she was not a consumer of electricity, but had directly connected a wire in the low tension electric line of PGVCL and was using electricity in her house. After the due procedure, it was found that she had utilized 265 watts of electricity and had committed theft of electricity of Rs.29,453.49 paisa. The complainant Virjibhai Govindbhai Dholaria, Deputy Engineer, Bhandwad Sub-Division at the PGVCL Police Station, Rajkot filed the complaint under Section 135 of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003, which came to be registered as PGVCL Police Station to C.R.No. 698 of 2006. 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. 46 of 2010. 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. 46 of 2010. 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.7 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.8, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 04 witnesses and produced 11 documentary evidences in support of the case. 2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.28, 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. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant-State. 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. 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, Virjibhai Govindbhai Dholaria, examined at Exh.10 is the Deputy Engineer, PGVCL, who has filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.14. The witness has stated that on 01.02.2006, the members of the Jamnagar I.C. Squad, Deputy Engineer, Ashokkumar Jayrambhai and Deputy Engineer, J.J.Bhatt had gone for checking and they found that the accused had committed a theft of electricity. The calculation sheet, which is produced at Exh.11, was drawn and it was found that theft of electricity of Rs.29,453.49 paisa was committed, and hence, the notice produced at Exh.12 was given. The bill of theft of electricity, which is produced at Exh.13, was given, and thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint at the PGVCL Police Station. During the cross examination, the witness has admitted that he was not a member of the checking squad and no photographs were taken. No complaint was filed at the Bhanwad Court prior to the complaint filed at the Police Station and no permission for filing of the complaint was received from the Vigilance Officer, Vadodara or the Executive Engineer of their division. The raiding party had seized the mudamal, but the mudamal was lying in their store till today and it was not handed over to the police during investigation. The police had not recorded his statement and he has not seen the place where the theft was committed. 7.1. PW-2 Prahladrai Govindram Valera is the P.S.O., who had registered the complaint. 7.2. PW-3 Ashokkumar Jairambhai Dave, examined at Exh.18, is the Deputy Engineer, who was working in the I.C. Squad, Jamnagar and on 24.01.2006, he had gone for checking along with Deputy Engineer J.J.Bhatt. The witness has stated that on checking the house of the accused, they had found that she was committing theft of electricity and the witness has produced the checking sheet at Exh.19 and the rojkam at Exh.20. The mudamal that was seized was deposited in the store of the PGVCL, Bhanwad and the receipt is produced at Exh.21. The witness has stated that on checking the house of the accused, they had found that she was committing theft of electricity and the witness has produced the checking sheet at Exh.19 and the rojkam at Exh.20. The mudamal that was seized was deposited in the store of the PGVCL, Bhanwad and the receipt is produced at Exh.21. During the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that no record about the accused was collected on 24.01.2006 during checking and no photographs have been produced. No independent panch witnesses were present at the time of the checking. The mudamal was not handed over to the police and there were no written instructions to go for checking on 24.01.2006. 7.2. PW-4 Rambhai Channabhai Chawda, examined at Exh.24, is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. The witness has produced the Proforma No.12 at Exh.25, and during the cross- examination, has admitted that he did not seize any mudamal during investigation. The complainant did not give any authority letter of any superior authority for filing the complaint. 7. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is on record that the complainant PW-1 Virjibhai Govindbhai Dholaria was not a member of the checking squad and he did not go for checking on the date of the incident. The checking was done on 24.01.2006 and the complaint was filed on 01.02.2006, but there was no permission from any superior authority for filing the complaint. PW-3 Ashokkumar Jayrambhai Dave, who had gone for checking, has stated that the wire was seized, but the wire was deposited in the store of the GEB by the receipt produced at Exh.21. The wire was not handed over to the investigating officer and the other officer who had gone for checking has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. As per the case of the prosecution, the checking was conducted at the residence of the accused and there may be residents residing nearby, but no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW-3 Ashokkumar Jayrambhai Dave has admitted that no panchnama was prepared at the place of offence and no signatures of any panch witnesses were taken during checking. There is no evidence on record that the place where the checking had taken place was in the ownership or possession of the accused. 8. PW-3 Ashokkumar Jayrambhai Dave has admitted that no panchnama was prepared at the place of offence and no signatures of any panch witnesses were taken during checking. There is no evidence on record that the place where the checking had taken place was in the ownership or possession of the accused. 8. 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. 9. The judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Khambhaliya in Special (G.E.B.) Case No. 46 of 2010 on 15.06.2012 is hereby confirmed. 10. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.