Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chaudhary Ambalal Govabhai on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1331 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHAUDHARY AMBALAL GOVABHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 08/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is 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 the learned and Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge , Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Electricity Case No. 33/2009 on 31.05.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of The Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 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 brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 The complainant - Arunkumar Natwarlal Sheth was working as Deputy Engineer, UGVCL Mansa Sub Division and on 17.06.2009, Junior Engineer - J. A. Damor along with helpers T. N. Rathore, K. A. Damore, B. B. Patel, K. J.
Thakore and P. S. Asari had gone for checking the electricity connections in Mansa Sub Division. The accused was not a consumer of electricity of UGVCL but had directly taken a connection from the LT Line with a 2.5 mm yellow color 25 meter wire and was committing theft of electricity. After the due procedure was done, a bill of theft of electricity of Rs. 9223.94/- was given on 18.06.2009 to the accused but the same was not paid and hence, the complainant filed the complaint which was registered at GEB AEC Police Station, Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined Surat II - C.R No. 274 of 2009 under Section 135(1A) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
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, Mansa and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Special Court, Gandhinagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Electricity Case No. 33/2009.
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. 8 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 9, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced 8 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 them.
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, Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the case of the 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 Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State. Though served, the respondent has not appeared either in person or through an advocate. 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 Ms. C.M. Shah 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 Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals 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 Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, 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. 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 Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court".
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 in 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 Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined 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.
7. 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 Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
8. 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 theft of electricity. PW1 - Arunkumar Natwarlal Seth examined at Exh. 14 is the complainant who has filed the written complaint which was sent to Police Inspector, GEB Police Station, Sabarmati Circle which is produced at Exh. 15 but it appears that the witness had not gone for checking and he had filed the complaint on the basis of the information from the Junior Engineer and has no personal knowledge of the incident. The bill that was given to the accused was paid on the same day and if the bill which is produced at Exh. 19 is produced, there is no date mentioned on the bill.
The complainant has produced the checking report at Exh. 16, the Rojkam at Exh. 17, the notice sent to the accused at Exh. 18 and the bill at Exh. 19 but it appears Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined that all these documents were not executed in the presence of the complainant and he has no personal knowledge about the incident.
8.1 PW2 - Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damore examined at Exh. 20 was working as a Junior Engineer and he had gone along with staff members T.N. Rathod, K.R. Damore, D.B. Patel, K.J. Thakor and T.S. Asari for checking the electricity connections and had found that the accused was committing theft of electricity. All the documents were executed and after coming to the office, the theft was reported to the Deputy Engineer who had filed the case. It appears that the wire that was the muddamal through which the theft of electricity was being committed was not produced before the Investigating Officer during investigation and the wire was directly produced by PW2 - Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damor before the learned Trial Court and he had stated that this was the wire that was used by the accused for committing the theft of electricity even though the accused was not a consumer of electricity. In the cross examination, it has emerged that only the office Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined staff had gone and no independent witnesses were present at the time of the checking and the wire that was produced by the witness before the learned Trial Court was easily available in the market. Moreover, there was no document on record to show that the place which was checked was the house of the accused.
8.2 PW3 - Kiritbhai Ramanbhai Damor examined at Exh. 25, PW4 - Prakashbhai Shakrabhai Asari examined at Exh. 26, PW5 - Bipinkumar Bakorbhai Patel examined at Exh. 27, PW6 - Kachraji Jitaji Thakur examined at Exh. 28 and PW8 - Talaji Nathaji Rathod examined at Exh. 32 were all working as helpers in the UGVCL in Mansa Sub Division and they had gone along with PW2 - Junior Engineer - Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damor for checking of the electricity connections and they have all stated the same facts as narrated by PW2 - Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damor but in the evidence of all the witnesses it has emerged that there were no independent persons along with them and the witnesses from PW3 to PW6 were helpers and working as per the directions of the Deputy Engineer. Moreover, Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined during the raid they had not seized any document to show that the accused was the owner or occupier of the house which was checked and the wire that was produced by PW2
- Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damor during his deposition before the learned Trial Court was easily available in the market.
8.3 PW7 - Shankarbhai Mavjibhai Kotwal is the PSO who has registered the complaint and has produced the copy of the Station Diary at Exh. 30. As per the document produced at Exh. 30, the offence was committed on 17.02.2009 but the complaint was filed on 06.03.2009 after a delay of more than 19 days.
8.4 PW9 - Bhemabhai Velabhai Bharwad examined at Exh. 33 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that the complaint was given 15 days after the incident and during investigation it was found that the bill of the theft of electricity was paid and no evidence was found that the theft of electricity had taken place. Moreover, during Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined investigation, the statements of no independent witnesses have been recorded.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the complainant PW1 - Arunkumar Natwarlal Sheth had not gone for checking of the electricity connection and he has no personal knowledge of the theft or the place where the checking had taken place. PW2 - Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damor was working as a Junior Engineer and he had gone along with helpers. PW3 - Kiritbhai Ramanbhai Damor, PW4 - Prakashbhai Shakrabhai Asari, PW5 - Bipinkumar Bakorbhai Patel, PW6
- Kachraji Jitaji Thakur and PW8 - Talaji Nathaji Rathod but all the witnesses say that they had not seized any documentary evidence to show that the place where they had checked was in the ownership or possession of the accused. There is no evidence on record to show that the checking had actually taken place as there is no evidence to show that the persons who had gone for checking were authorized by any superior officer to go for checking. Admittedly, the wire that was alleged to have been used by Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined the accused for committing the theft of electricity was not produced before the Investigating Officer though the complaint produced at Exh. 15 states that the yellow coloured wire which was about 25 meters in length was sent along with the complaint but it appears that the same was not produced before the Investigating Officer even at the time of filing of the complaint or during investigation. Hence, the muddamal wire was not produced before the learned Trial Court in the proper manner and PW2 - Jaspalkumar Amrutlal Damor brought the wire before the learned Trial Court directly at the time of recording of his evidence. There is no iota of evidence as to where this wire was kept from 17.02.2009 when the checking was done and as to whether it was duly sealed and seized in the proper manner. Moreover, though there were independent witnesses available at the time of the incident, no independent witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court and at the time of the checking or thereafter, no panchnama of the place of offence has come on record. There are no documentary evidences to show Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined that theft of electricity had taken place and the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence on record.
10. 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 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 15 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned and Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge , Gandhinagar (in Special Electricity Case No. 33/2009 on 31.05.2012, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 00:14:18 IST 2025