Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Thakkar Pravinbhai Ramjibhai on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1114 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
THAKKAR PRAVINBHAI RAMJIBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.D K.PUJ(3836) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RUCHIR A PATEL(7954) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Electricity) Case No. 4/2016 on 15.06.2017, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of The Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined accused" as he 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 The accused was residing at village Chalwada, Taluka, Radhanpur, District Patan and the house had an electricity connection in the name of Ramjibhai Chandubhai Thakkar -
the father of the accused. On 26.04.2013, the officers of Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited (UGVCL), Surendranagar Division, Deputy Engineer - Bhupendrasinh Govindsinh Zala and other staff members had undertaken a surprise checking at the residence of the accused and found that electricity was being consumed but it was not recorded in the meter and after the due procedure, it was found that the accused had committed a theft of electricity of Rs. 1,67,587.82/-. The complainant - Nareshbhai Hargovanbhai Patel - Deputy Engineer, UGVCL, Radhanpur Sub Division filed the complaint at the Sabarmati GUVNL Police Station under Section 135(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, which came to be registered as Sabarmati GUVNL Police Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined Station I - C.R. No. 1137/2012.
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 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Radhanpur and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Patan as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No. 4/2016.
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. A charge at Exh. 10 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 11, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined 2.4 The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 12 documentary evidence and after the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has not considered the oral and documentary evidences in proper perspective and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has not considered the evidences produced on record and even though there is nothing on record to prove the charge against the accused, the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the case of the Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined prosecution. The prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent and the judgement 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 and hence, the impugned judgement and order must be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Himanshu Thakkar for learned advocate Mr. D.K. Puj. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated 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 has submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint and the evidence proves that the offence beyond reasonable doubts. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences.
6. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is 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.
7. In light of the above settled principles of law, as the case of the prosecution is that the accused had committed a theft of electricity, the prosecution has to prove that the accused, though was a non-consumer, was committing the Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined theft of electricity. PW1 - Patel Nareshbhai Hargovanbhai examined at Exh. 16 is the complainant who has narrated the facts as stated by him in the complaint produced at Exh. 17. The witness has stated that the accused had himself tampered with the body seal of the meter and had opened the meter and arranged the numbers himself and the consumption of the meter of the accused was showing a fixed consumption of 200 units per month for the past one year. The checking team had seized the service cable and meter, and had deposited the same in their office. The electricity connection was given to Ramjibhai Phoolchandbhai Thakkar but it was being used by the accused and the witness has produced the complaint at Exh. 17, the notice sent to the accused at Exh. 18, the bill of theft of electricity of Rs. 1,67,587.82/- at Exh. 19, the Annexure C at Exh. 20. During the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the complaint was filed about one month after the checking was done and was not filed immediately after the incident and no explanation for the delay in filing of the complaint has been given in the Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined complaint. The witness has admitted that he was not present along with the raiding party at the time of the raid and he does not know what procedure was undertaken at the time of the raid and the situation of the meter while it was seized. The witness has no personal knowledge about how the signatures were taken on the documents and the complaint at Exh. 17 was sent to the GUVNL, Sabarmati Police Station along with an employee and the complaint filed at Exh. 17 bears the handwriting of his clerk. The complaint was prepared on the basis of the documents submitted by the raiding party and he did not inquire in whose name was the electricity connection and whether the person in whose name the electricity connection was given was alive or not. The witness has admitted that theft of electricity and illegal usage of electricity were two separate things and the bill that was being given to the consumer was being paid regularly. The complaint was filed only on the basis of the information given by the members of the raiding party and the bill of theft of electricity was given as Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined per the ABCD formula and not as per the actual consumption.
7.1 PW2 - Thakor Jevatbhai Savdanbhai examined at Exh. 21 and PW3 - Chaudhary Nareshbhai Bhemabhai examined at Exh. 23 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 22. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. 7.2 PW4 - Zala Bhupatsinh Govindbhai examined at Exh. 25 was a member of the checking team and has supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has produced the checking sheet at Exh. 26 and the Annexure 4 at Exh. 27. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that at the time of the incident, his headquarter was Surendranagar and on 26.04.2012, he had instructions to go to Radhanpur for checking but the instructions were orally given and he did not produce any documentary evidence to show that he was instructed to go for checking to Radhanpur. He does not know in which direction is Chalwada village from Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined Radhanpur and when they went to Chalwada they had gone first to the house of the accused. He was the senior member at the time of the raid and he was informed by the persons who were with him that the theft of electricity was taking place. They did not pass any resolution about the theft of electricity on the spot and he did not ask the consumer about the old bills and did not verify whether the older bills were paid or not. No statements of any neighbours were recorded at the time of the incident.
7.3 PW5 - Solanki Dhanjibhai Muljibhai examined at Exh. 28 was working in the UGVCL and he was a member of the checking team on the date of the incident. The witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, he has stated that as a technician, he has to verify the electricity connections and no separate meter is placed besides the meter to check whether the meter is running slowly. The superior officer decides whether the theft of electricity has taken place or not and in his presence, no previous bills were verified by his superior officer. There was no written instructions to go for the Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined electricity checking and as an employee, it is his duty to obey the instructions of his superior officer. 7.4 PW6 - Padhiyar Bankumbhai Naranbhai examined at Exh. 29 was also a member of the checking team that had gone to Chalwada village of Radhanpur taluka on the date of the incident and has fully supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that as a helper, it is his duty to obey the instructions of his superior officers and the superior officer would decide whether theft of electricity has taken place or not. There was no written instruction given to him go for checking. 7.5 PW7 - Thakkar Shantaben Ramjibhai examined at Exh. 30 is the mother of the accused and she has stated that her husband Ramjibhai Phoolchandbhai Thakkar expired on 26.12.2001 and she has five sons Vinod, Praveen, Dinesh, Ganpat and Suresh. She has a house at Chalwada village and the electricity connection was taken in the name of her husband - Ramjibhai Phoolchandbhai. In the year 2012, the officers of the electricity company had Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined come for checking and she had told them that she was paying the electricity bills regularly but they had taken the meter stating that the meter had to be changed. That her sons were not present at the time of the incident. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. During cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she is residing in the house and her son Praveen was residing at Radhanpur. That after the officers of the electricity company had taken the meter, they had told her to send her son to Radhanpur to affix his signature on the documents.
7.6 PW8 - Raval Bhikhabhai Maghabhai examined at Exh. 31 is the PSO at GUVNL Police Station, Sabarmati who has registered the complaint and has produced the depute order at Exh. 32. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the complaint was filed two months Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined after the incident and along with the complaint, no muddadmaal was sent by the complainant. 7.7 PW9 - Belim Rehmankhan Namadkhan examined at Exh. 34 is the Investigating Officer who has partly investigated the offence and has drawn the panchnama at Exh. 22 and had thereafter handed over the investigation to ASI - K.G. Sadhu.
7.8 PW10 - Sadhu Kiritkumar Govindlal examined at Exh. 35 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. The witness has produced the death certificate of Ramjibhai Phoolchandbhai Thakkar at Exh. 36 and the election card of the accused at Exh. 37. The witness has also produced a consumption list of the electricity consumed by consumer no. 72187000354 - Ramjibhai Phoolchandbhai Thakkar from January 2008 to March 2012 at Exh. 38 and a letter sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Radhanpur at Exh. 39.
8. On minute perusal of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is on record that the surprise checking was Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined conducted by the Officers of the UGVCL on 26.04.2012 and the complaint has been filed on 29.05.2012. The panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exh. 22 has been drawn on 12.06.2012. The complainant PW1 - Nareshbhai Hargovanbhai Patel was not the member of the checking team and has no personal knowledge about the incident and has not explained the delay of more than one month in filing of the complaint. Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution, the meter and the wire were seized but they have not been brought before the learned Trial Court and PW4 - Bhupatsinh Govindsinh Zala examined at Exh. 25 has stated that the service cable and the electricity meter were seized and they were deposited at the office at Radhanpur but the muddamaal was not seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation. There is no panchnama regarding the seizure of the meter and wire drawn at the place of incident and the complainant has prepared the complaint which is produced at Exh. 17 on the basis of the documents given by the checking team. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence regarding the Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined ownership or possession of the property where the checking had taken place and that the same was in possession of the accused. In fact, PW7 - Shantaben Ramjibhai Thakkar has stated that she was residing in the house and the accused was residing at Radhanpur and the officers of the electricity company had come and taken the meter stating that the same had to be changed and to send her son to the Radhanpur office. There is no iota of evidence that the accused himself was residing in the house as PW7 has stated that she has five sons - Vinod, Praveen, Dinesh, Ganpat and Suresh and the electricity connection was in the name of her deceased husband - Ramjibhai Phoolchandbhai Thakkar. Besides the handwritten complaint produced at Exh. 17, no FIR has been produced by the prosecution on record and the complainant has admitted that the complaint at Exh. 17 bear the handwriting of his clerk. Moreover, the place where the surprise checking was undertaken was a residential house and there may be others residing near the place where the checking had taken place but no independent witnesses Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined have been examined by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court.
9. In view of the settled position of law, 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 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.
Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
10. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Electricity) Case No. 4/2016 on 15.06.2017, is hereby confirmed.
11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:52 IST 2025