Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manharba Batuksinh Jadeja on 30 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1686 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANHARBA BATUKSINH JADEJA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 30/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25/07/2012 passed in Special (GEB) Case No.21 of 2009 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar whereby the respondent- accused was acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the version on the side of the complainant is that, on 07/03/2006, at the time of Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:31:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined checking by the staff of the concerned Electricity Department at the house of the accused, the accused was found committing offence of theft of electricity by doing some wrongful wire set up and therefore the officer of the raiding party prepared a report and seized muddamal wire and submitted the same before the office of the GEB and on the basis of the same, supplementary bill of Rs.24536.40 was prepared and sent to the accused. As the same was not paid by the accused, the officer of the GEB filed a complaint being II-C.R. No.401 of 2007 before the GEB Police Station, Rajkot against the accused.
3. It was investigated and after recording statements of concerned witnesses arrested the accused and produced him before the concerned court wherein the accused has been released on bail. Thereafter as there was enough evidence against the accused, the Investigation Officer filed the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the same was numbered as Criminal Case No.303 of 2009. As the case was exclusively triable by the sessions division, the same was transmitted before the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:31:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined
4. In the trial court, the charge for the aforesaid offence was framed against the accused. Charge was read over to the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-3 witnesses and got marked 7 exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.
6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded with regard to incriminating circumstances made in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and the accused has denied it.
7. At the end of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found the accused not guilty for the aforesaid offence and acquitted him of the alleged charge.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal challenging the Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:31:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.
9. When the appeal came up for hearing, this Court has heard learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the appellant-State. Despite service of notice, the respondent did not turn up for hearing, for the reasons best known to him. As it is an old appeal of the year 2012, listed under the caption "critically old matters" for final hearing, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the hearing of the appeal. Therefore, this Court has decided to go through the record and proceedings and dispose of the appeal on merits considering the material available on record.
10. This Court has heard learned APP at length on facts and on provisions of law. Learned APP submitted the facts of the charge levelled against the respondent accused and referred the oral and documentary evidence produced during the trial and vehemently argued that accused was found committing theft of the electricity by the officers of the raiding party and accordingly committed an offence as alleged against him and vehemently argued that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence while acquitting the Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:31:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined accused and hence the same is required to be interfered by this Court in this appeal.
11. This Court has deeply scrutinized the prosecution evidence, impugned judgment and considered the arguments of the learned APP.
12. The prosecution has examined the material witness PW- 2 Anilbhai Dhanjibhai Marvania vide Exh.15. During the chief examination, he has stated that he was performing duty as a Junior Engineer in Darbargadh Sub Division, Jamnagar on 07/03/2006. It is further stated that on 07/03/2006 he has proceeded for checking with the line staff at the house of the accused. It is further stated that the respondent accused found illegally using electric powers without electric meter directly connecting the electric wires to the electric poles and committed theft of electricity. He has stated the facts of the procedure of checking and preparing documentary evidence and produced the same vide Exh.16 and Exh.17. 12.1. During the cross examination, he has admitted the fact that he has not obtained any written permission from the higher authority about checking and not prepared the Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:31:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined recovery panchnama in presence of panchas/mediators. He has stated that he has not obtained any documentary evidence related to ownership or possession of checking place.
13. Considering the testimony of the said prosecution witness and the documentary evidence produced during his deposition, it appears that he has not collected any relevant document relating to the ownership or possession of the place of incident. This fact is required to be considered.
14. The prosecution has examined PW-1, complainant at Exh.8. Considering the testimony of the said witness, he has no personal knowledge about the alleged incident. It appears from his deposition that the date of checking is 07/03/2006 and the complaint is filed on 26/04/2006 and no any explanation for the delay sin the FIR.
15. The prosecution has examined PW-3, Investigating Officer at Exh.19. He has stated the fact that during the investigation, he has not recovered any muddamal and not prepared the panchnama of place of incident and not recorded the statements of the independent witnesses and not collected the documentary evidence of the said place. Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:31:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined
16. Considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and the charge levelled against the respondent accused for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, in other words, charge against the accused, theft of electricity amount of Rs.24,536.40, considering the important aspect that the Investigating Officer has not seized/recovered any instrument or any electric wire used in alleged act of theft of electricity power, in absence of such important evidence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the said theft i.e. the alleged charge against the respondent- accused.
17. Further, considering the findings recorded in the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court has referred the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Karsan Chakubhai Parmar (Criminal Appeal No.969 of 2009), which is completely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
18. It appears from the record that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of alleged offence and no iota Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:31:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025 undefined of evidence produced on record to prove the same.
19. Upon considering the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same, the trial court arrived at a right conclusion and acquitted the accused. Upon re-appraisal of the said evidence, this Court is also of the view that no case is made out for the alleged charge against the accused. So, the impugned judgment of the trial court cannot be disturbed as it warrants no interference in this appeal. Accordingly, present appeal fails and liable to be dismissed.
20. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the acquittal of the trial court. Bail bond of the accused, if any, shall stand discharged.
21. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the concerned court.
(D. M. VYAS, J) ILA Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 22:31:20 IST 2025