Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 914 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Rajubhai Makanbhai Sanchaniya

2025-08-21

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (GEB) Case No. 202 of 2014 on 30.01.2017 whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 1.1 During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent No. 2 expired and hence the appeal qua the respondent No. 2 was abated by an order dated 26.06.2025. 1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:- 2.1 On 26-08-2004, the electricity meter of Tulsi Enterprise Industries, which belonged to the accused, was removed and thereafter, on 1-10- 2004, the officers of the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as PGVCL) checked the electricity connection of Tulsi Industries and found that the accused had directly joined a black- colour cable wire on the low-tension line of PGVCL and were consuming electricity. After the due procedure, it was found that theft of electricity of Rs.8,24,274/- was committed by the accused and the complainant Chandrakant Ramjibhai Patel, Deputy Engineer, PGVCL, Industrial Sub- Division, Jamnagar filed a complaint at the GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone on 6-10-2004, which was registered at GEB Police Station vide II-C.R.No.1123 of 2004. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was registered as Special (GEB) Case No. 202 of 2014. 2.3 The accused were 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. A charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.4 and Exh.5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced five oral and seven documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 37, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused was heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against him. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4 . Heard learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. D.V.Chauhan for respondent Nos. 1 – original accused. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5 . Learned APP Mr. 4 . Heard learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. D.V.Chauhan for respondent Nos. 1 – original accused. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5 . Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat has taken this Court, through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. The complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. The order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed. 6. Learned advocate Mr. D.V.Chauhan for respondent No. 1 – original accused submits that the judgments and order has been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected. 7 . At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 , wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:- Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831 , this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate 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 iTimes New Romann 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. (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. 8. 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. 8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same. 9. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence of the prosecution on record, to bring home the charge against the accused, Prosecution Witness No.1 – Jaydeep Jayantkumar Bhatt who was working as the Executive Engineer at Rajkot Corporate Office, he has been examined at Exhibit 10 and has supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that on 1-10-2004, he along with Deputy Engineer C.R.Patel, Junior Engineer, Ashok Jayaram Dave, Junior Engineer K.C.Chauhan and other staff members had gone for checking in Jamnagar and while checking Tulsi Enterprise, they found that the electricity connection was directly connected and theft of electricity was taking place. Earlier on 26-08-2004, the meter was removed but the electricity connection was being used in the premises. Necessary photographs were taken and the calculation-sheet is produced at Exhibit 11 and the Rojkam is produced at Exhibit 12. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that an offence under Sections 332 , 323 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 has been registered at C.R. No.295 of 2004 and he had given his deposition in that case. The connection was an industrial connection that was earlier given and he did not take any written permission for the checking from any authority. The connection was an industrial connection that was earlier given and he did not take any written permission for the checking from any authority. There were no documentary evidence about the ownership of the place that was checked and the Rojkam was not prepared in the presence of independent panchwitnesses. 9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Chandrakant Ramjibhai Patel examined at Exhibit 17 is the complainant, who has filed the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 20. The witness has stated that he was present at the time of the raid and the calculation-sheet is produced at Exhibit 18 and the bill of theft is produced at Exhibit 19. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has not taken the permission of any superior authority before filing the complaint and he was working as a Deputy Engineer, at the time of the incident. 9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Prahladrai Govindram Valera examined at Exhibit 24 was the P.S.O. at the GEB Police Station and he has registered the complaint. The FIR is produced at Exhibit 26. 9.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Kishan Chhotalal Chauhan examined at Exhibit 30 was working as the Deputy Engineer on the date of the raid and he has supported the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that they did not have any authority to conduct a raid and the place, where the raid was conducted, was not an industrial zone. There were no documents regarding the ownership of the place taken from the accused and the Rojkam was not prepared in the presence of independent panchwitnesses. 9.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 – Ashok Jairambhai Dave examined at Exhibit 33 was working as a Deputy Engineer in Rajkot City Division-II and the witness has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that they were not authorized to conduct the raid and an industrial connection cannot be given in any residential area. They did not take any authorization in writing for checking and there were no documents about the ownership of the place where they had conducted the raid that were taken from the accused. 10. They did not take any authorization in writing for checking and there were no documents about the ownership of the place where they had conducted the raid that were taken from the accused. 10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, admittedly the raid was conducted on 01-10-2004 and the complaint was filed on 05-10-2004 and was registered at the Police Station on 06-10- 2004 at GEB Police Station vide II-C.R.No.1123 of 2004. There is no explanation for delay in filing of the complaint and there was no permission taken from any competent authority to file the complaint. There are no independent panchwitnesses, in whose presence, the panchnama was drawn and the complainant and other officers of the PGVCL were well-aware that they were conducting the raid and they had to keep independent panchwitnesses present but no such independent panchwitnesses were kept with them. There was no videography or photography of the place done and it has also emerged on record that the officers were not duly authorized to conduct the raid. Moreover, Prosecution Witness No. 1 Jaydeep Jayantkumar Bhatt and Prosecution Witness No. 2 Chandrakant Ramjibhai Patel have both stated that line Staff B.N.Sodha was present and he had taken the photographs but the said line staff B.N.Sodha has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the device in which the photographs were captured has not been produced before the Investigating Officer and the muddamal wire has not been seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation and the same has not been produced before the learned Trial Court. The witnesses have stated that they had taken the wire, but no such wire has been produced during the Trial before the learned Trial Court. The witnesses have also admitted that, at the time of the raid, they did not seize any documents regarding the ownership of the property that was raided. 11 . In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra) , 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 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 learned 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. 12. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special (GEB) Case No. 202 of 2014 on 30.01.2017 , is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.