Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Fakirbhai Motibhai Sipai on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1310 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
===============================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
===============================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
FAKIRBHAI MOTIBHAI SIPAI
===============================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AM BHATASARA(5846) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR.ROHAN MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
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, Patan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Special (Electricity) Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Case No.7 of 2008 order dated 28.05.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(A) 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 21-11-2006, at around 15:30 hours, the officers of the Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited,(hereinafter referred to as "UGVCL") and other staff members had gone for checking at village Ranaud at the residence of the accused and the accused was not a consumer of electricity, but had directly joined 1/18 wire, which was in black color to the low tension line and had illegally joined the electricity connection and had taken the other end of the wire to the main switch in his house and was using 1600 watts of electricity. After the necessary procedure was conducted by the officers, it was found that the accused had committed theft Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined of electricity of Rs.14,816/- and the complainant Ghanshyambhai Kamjibhai Baranda filed the complaint under Section 135(1) of the Act at the Sabarmati Police Station, which came to be registered as Sabarmati Police Station II-CR No. 1099 of 2006 on 30.11.2006. 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. 07 of 2008.
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.26 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.27, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 04 witnesses and has produced 09 documentary evidences in support of the case.
2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.43, 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(1)(A) 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 erred in acquitting the accused though there are ample and cogent evidence to connect the Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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 learned Trial Court has erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 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 and learned advocate Mr.Rohan Majmudar for learned advocate Mr.N.K.Majmudar for the respondent No.2. 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 Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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. Learned advocate Mr.Rohan Majmudar for the respondent - original accused has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal.
7. 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 Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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.
8. PW-1 Kantibhai Chhaganbhai Patel examined at Exh.28 has stated that he had gone on 21.11.2006 along with Deputy Engineer Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Baranda and staff members for checking at village Ranaud and they found the accused committing theft of electricity. The witness has mainly supported the case of the prosecution, but during the cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused had assaulted him with a stick and he had fallen down and he was thereafter seated in the jeep and no procedure was undertaken after that. When they went to the place of incident, they saw the wire and they had taken down the wire and he was assaulted with a stick, and besides this, no other procedure was undertaken by them. 8.1. PW-2 Ghanshyambhai Kamjibhai Baranda examined at Exh.29 is the complainant, who was working a Deputy Engineer in UGVCL, Sami Sub Division and on 21-11-2006, he had gone along with line staff K.C.Patel, V.D. Parmar and M.N. Varan in a rented jeep, and when they had gone to village Ranaudat the house of the accused, they found that he was committing theft of electricity. The witness has produced the checking sheet at Exh.31, the Rojkam at Exh.32, Annexure-C at Exh.33, notice sent to the accused at Exh.34, the bill of theft of electricity at Exh.36 and the complaint at Exh.38. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined that when they went for checking, the earlier connection of the accused was disconnected and arrears bill was outstanding, and he does not know whether the electricity connection was taken on 31.10.2005. In the document produced at Exh.31, which is the checking sheet the signature of the accused has not been taken and the document produced at Exh.32, which is the Rojkam, does not state the time when it had begun and the time when it was concluded. No statements of independent witnesses have been recorded and theft of electricity and illegal usage of electricity are two separate things.
8.2. PW-3, Sajjansinh Manusinh Chawda examined at Exh.40 is the P.S.O., who has registered the complaint at Sabarmati Police Station II-C.R.No.1099 of 2006 and the witness has stated that the complaint was sent to the police station, and with that, the muddamal wire was also sent, for which, a muddamal receipt was issued. The muddamal was given to the complainant to take care of and to be produced, if necessary. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the complainant had submitted the complaint but no panchnama regarding the muddamal was Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined submtitted by the complainant. No statements of independent witnesses were recorded and the muddamal was not sealed and no steps were taken to ensure that the muddamal was not changed or manipulated with.
8.3. PW-4 Govindgiri Ganapatpuri Goswami examined at Exh.42 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that no signature of the consumer or any representative of the consumer has been taken in Exh.31 and only the signatures of the employees of the electricity board are taken in Exh.31 and Exh.32. There are no independent witnesses, whose statements were recorded during investigation and there is no panchnama of the wire that was seized. Moreover, during investigation, no document regarding the ownership of the house was taken and the statement of the Talati has also not been recorded. Admittedly, the offense was committed in a residential area and there were neighbors, but no such neighbors have been examined or their statements have not been recorded during investigation.
Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined
9. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it appears that the complaint has been filed without the proper procedure adopted as per section 151 of the Act and the complainant, during the deposition, has not stated that he had seized any muddamal wire and has not produced any such muddamal wire, by which, the theft of electricity was taking place in the police station. PW-1 Kantibhai Chhaganbhai Patel, who, as per the case of the prosecution, was present at the time of checking, has stated that there was a black color wire, which was taken by them, but no such wire has been produced before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, PW-1 Kantibhai Chhaganbhai Patel, who was present at the time when the checking had taken place, has clearly stated that no procedure was done at the place of incidence and it appears that all the documents produced at Exh.31 to Exh.38 were not prepared at the spot, but were prepared later on as they do not bear the signature of the complainant or any representative of the complainant. PW-3 Sajjansinh Manusinh Chavda examined at Exh.40 has stated that the muddamal wire was handed over back to the complainant, but no steps were taken to ensure that the muddamal wire was sealed and there is no iota Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined of evidence that any wire was used by the accused to commit the theft of electricity as the same wire not produced before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence that the place where the checking was conducted was in the ownership and possession of the accused and that the accused was, in fact, committing theft of electricity at that place. The entire evidence has been appreciated in a proper manner by the learned Trial Court and has, in a well-reasoned judgment, discussed the entire evidence in detail.
10. In view of the above, the 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 Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1310/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the 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.
11. The impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Patan in Special (Electricity) Case No.7 of 2008 order dated 28.05.2012 is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI.....
Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 01:07:21 IST 2025